What about Lamech's "wound"?

by Schizm 53 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  RubaDub

  "A man I have killed for wounding me,

  Yes, a young man for giving me a blow . "

  I recall something like this recently in the news. A man killed another after getting a "blow" from a person he thought was a woman. Apparently, the man was dressed as a woman when he performed the act on the man. The man was so distressed that he had received a "blow" from another man he killed him.

  This may have been the case Lamech. Certainly, based upon historical records, transvestites have been part of history.

  There is certainly a lesson to be learned here. If one doesn't heed the Biblical admonition to be faithful to one's spouse, at least you should check out what type of equipment the other person has before getting intimite.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  Schizm

  To quote myself:

  The way in which the young man wounded Lamech (dealt him a blow) was that he raped his daughter (Naamah).

  Because of the apparent lack of interest, I won't bother to discuss the basis for my having arrived at that understanding.

  .
• 

  AuldSoul

  What is it that makes you think there is a lack of interest? I can't speak for others, but I have been following with avid interest.

  Is it because you don't get immediate agreement with your point? That is probably because you are accustomed to marking house-to-house record sheets as not interested when people make it clear they don't want to become Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Now, I am most curious to find out from whence you arrived at Naamah being raped by the young man. Please relate, in detail, how you know this.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Schizm

  How can you say "the young man never laid a hand on Lamech" when the text says this?--Leolaia.

  Consider: In the account below, did they REALLY plow with Samson's young cow? Did Samson even have a young cow?

  In turn [Samson] said to them:
  "If

  YOU had not plowed with my young cow,
  Y OU would not have solved my riddle." ¾ Judges 14:18.

  Just as Samson spoke in a figurative sense, so did Lamech when speaking of the wound/blow that he had received.

  Why is it that you have such a difficult time in grasping this about Lamech's wound/blow?

  Think about this: Along with having mentioned a "young man," there is also mention of the fact that Lamech had a "daughter". Even as was the case with her mother, the meaning of Naamah's name reveals that she was a beautiful girl. Are these clues to properly understanding the account?.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Without indulging into the Jehovah's Witnesses favorite pastime of reading into the text what isn't there, no. I don't see it at all. How does the fact that the two wives and a daughter are mentioned mean some young stud boinked the daughter? He couldn't have boinked a wife? Maybe Naamah looked a little too much like the young man (doesn't give Naamah's age, she could have been 14 years old). In terms of lives spanning hundreds of years, the young man could have been 200 years old.

  I don't see where you are adding this up at all.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Schizm

  I don't see where you are adding this up at all.--AuldSoul.

  Nor did I expect that you would see.

  But since you're so intelligent, perhaps you'd like to explain what the account is all about, why it's in the Bible in the first place, why the names of Lamech's family are given, etc. Tell us all about it, AuldSoul. Impress us with your intellect.

  .
• 

  AuldSoul

  Schizm, unlike you and the Watchtower Society, I don't pretend that every scintilla of print in the Bible holds more meaning than what it states.

  You are the one espousing a belief that isn't based on the Bible and expressing frustration that no one but you "gets it." If you were trying to impress me with your intellect, you failed. I am not trying to impress you with mine. Because my objective was conditional I couldn't possibly fail in my aim. My objective was simply to see whether you have some reason for believing you know what this means.

  Now that I see you don't, that you only have conjecture that doesn't stand up the barest questioning for basis, there is no need in my mind to pursue it further.

  You were posting as though you had run across something significant and telling about this passage, I imagined there was something hidden in the original text that you'd stumbled onto. Like most JWs, you think anyone who challenges your posts for basis is trying to show off their own intellect or needs to have some other explanation handy to make yours invalid. All I have to do to make your assertions invalid as explanative of these verses is show that you have no basis for your interpretation, I don't have to invent a more valid interpretation.

  That isn't to say that you can't believe you found something cool and figured out a passage of Scripture. I don't know for certain that you're wrong, I just can't demonstrate that you are right. And neither can you. It is preaching what they can't prove to be true that has gotten the Governing Body into such sore straits.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Schizm

  Schizm, unlike you and the Watchtower Society, I don't pretend that every scintilla of print in the Bible holds more meaning than what it states.

  A lie just came out of your mouth when you stated this. Neither I nor the WTS says what you claim.

  You are the one espousing a belief that isn't based on the Bible

  I don't know for certain that you're wrong

  Which way is it, AuldSoul? First you express confidence that my belief is NOT based on the Bible, then in your next breath you say that you're not all that sure.

  All I have to do to make your assertions invalid as explanative of these verses is show that you have no basis for your interpretation, I don't have to invent a more valid interpretation.

  But you haven't done that yet.

  .
• 

  AuldSoul

  I don't know for sure that your private interpretation of the text is wrong. I do know for certain you can't prove it's right. I do know for certain it is a private interpretation. I do know for certain that there is no basis for your interpretation in the text itself.

  There is no logical conflict in these statements, these factual representations are not mutually exclusive.

  I don't know for certain that you are wrong because: (1) I did not witness the events described, (2) the writer omitted enough details that the resulting account is insufficient to prove you wrong, and (3) it is a possibility that things happened exactly as you surmise.

  However, I thought of five other scenarios since my last post that could also explain every element of the text provided. It doesn't mean my explanations are more valid, but they are not any less possible. Given time, I believe I could arrive at many more explanations with an equal allowance of possibility in the text.

  But if you like this one you came up with, you may as well believe it as any other. I only caution that you be aware that teaching it as "the way it happened" would put you at risk of lying about it unless you know for certain.

  AuldSoul
• 

  IP_SEC

  Schizm, You’ve offered no evidence to back up your idea, and then you attack people that disagree or don’t understand your point. The problem is not those who have posted on your thread. It is your miserable failure of communication coupled with a point that has been long in coming. When you finally got to the point (only out of sheer frustration that no one saw what you were trying to say) it ends up being a non-point after all. Matt AKA hate filled sack of puss