Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I simply will not continue to cite the "meaning" of the text, only for you to plod along like it's not there! Believe what you will, I'm sticking w/ the Bible!

Oh yea', if I'm "pure," what's that make you:_______? Talk about "putting your foot in your mouth"...isn't this fun?

I didn't call you "pure."

Your mangling my words like you do Paul's. Careful now

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I didn't call you "pure."

Your mangling my words like you do Paul's. Careful now

Ughhh, from where would you suppose the word "pure" derives etymologically:_______? Need some help? "p-u-r-e"! Wrong about that just as you are "not with gold...".

Try again................

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, from where would you suppose the word "pure" derives etymologically:_______? Need some help? "p-u-r-e"! Wrong about that just as you are "not with gold...".

Try again................

HAHAHA. Thanks for doing what you're doing right now. Really showcasing, quite nakedly the broken logic you have brought to the table here.

Exhibit Z of what you do to the human language.

Because the word "Puritan" has etymology with the word "pure," therefore when I called you a "Puritan" I was really calling you "pure." hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

HAHAHA. Thanks for doing what you're doing right now. Really showcasing, quite nakedly the broken logic you have brought to the table here.

Exhibit Z of what you do to the human language.

Because the word "Puritan" has etymology with the word "pure," therefore when I called you a "Puritan" I was really calling you "pure." hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa

Strawman alert! My point is that you cannot separate the term from its root meaning...another blunder from the Jeffrey bench!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Strawman alert! My point is that you cannot separate the term from its root meaning...another blunder from the Jeffrey bench!

You can't?

Are you telling me a person that is a Puritan is also pure?


Maybe take a break and come back in 10?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You can't?

Are you telling me a person that is a Puritan is also pure?


Maybe take a break and come back in 10?

Ughhh, I was referencing the etymology of the TERM...not the person! You might wanna' "take 10!"

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhh, I was referencing the etymology of the TERM...not the person! You might wanna' "take 10!"

You said I called you "pure" because the word "puritan" has an etymology in the word "pure." Come on, rdp, you're really going to keep arguing this?

I called you a Puritan. The etymology is not relevant. It's quite obvious from the CONTEXT that I am referring to those 16th-17th Century Protestants and the later ascetic movements that associated with their beliefs. Actually, it wasn't that deep either. It was more of a pejorative. But whatever.

Fact is... we are actually arguing that? Really? Proof that you'd argue with the moon is purple.