What about Lamech's "wound"? (page 5)

AuldSoul

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.

Very well, let's go over it again briefly:

You don't know how old the young man was. You know what the term means in Israelite society but have no frame of reference for the term's application to longer reported lifespans.

You don't know how old Naamah was.

You don't know how old either wife was.

You don't know whether any physical contact ever occurred between Naamah and the young man (because the text does not state it).

You do not know if the young man ever met or saw Naamah (because the text does not state it).

Therefore, while you are welcome to believe whatever you like it would do you well to note that your belief is based on your imagination, not on the Bible.

AuldSoul

Schizm

I do know for certain you can't prove it's right. .... I do know for certain that there is no basis for your interpretation in the text itself.--AuldSoul.

I do know for certain that you're full of hot air.

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.--AuldSoul.

You couldn't have made it more plain that you believe the account is impossible to understand. If that were to be the case, that it is impossible to understand, then WHY was it made a part of the Scriptures?

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.

And THAT is just about the limit of your thinking ability, isn't it!

.

Schizm

Matt AKA hate filled sack of puss

I don't disagree with that.

.

Schizm

You don't know how old the young man was. You know what the term means in Israelite society but have no frame of reference for the term's application to longer reported lifespans.--AuldSoul.

He was certainly young in comparison to the age of Lamech himself.

You don't know how old Naamah was.

She was certainly young in comparison to the age of her father, Lamech.

You don't know how old either wife was.

They both were old enough to have become married and have children--some of which had become fully grown by the time that Lamech commited this murder.

You don't know whether any physical contact ever occurred between Naamah and the young man (because the text does not state it).

So what you're claiming is that because the text didn't just outright say "Naamah was raped" then there's no way of understanding that such a thing really happened. You're being absurd!

You do not know if the young man ever met or saw Naamah (because the text does not state it).

Why of course he had met Naamah! How else do you think he could've "boinked" her. Duh!

Therefore, while you are welcome to believe whatever you like it would do you well to note that your belief is based on your imagination, not on the Bible.

The fact that Lamech's daughter is brought into the account, with her name even being revealed, is not a product of my imagination. There can be only one reason for the reader being told of Lamech even having a daughter, and that would be because of a tie between her and Lamech having announced that he had killed a young man.

.

AuldSoul

How old was Lamech when this occurred? You don't know.

Therefore you have no way to determine the relative ages of the others in the account.

Lamech lived to be only 777 years. Let us suppose he was 500 when the events under consideration occurred. Let us further suppose that near the same time the events occurred, one of his wives had given birth to Naamah (which means, ironically, "Pleasant"). That gets one wife mention. Let us suppose one of the wives is 250 and the other wife is a mere 100 years old. Let us futher suppose the young man in question is 55.

Now, can you see the problem with your storyline? A baby Naamah, a young man of 55...

No, you probably don't. But this supposition fits the facts stated just as well as your supposition. Mine is neither more or less probable, as an accurate portrayal of what could have happened, than yours is. Since I can come up with many more scenarios of possible configurations than just this one, including the one you came up with, I have to admit that your scenario is possibly the correct one. However, since it isn't recorded as the correct one, I can't state that your is correct I can only allow for the possibility.

I haven't insulted you here, Schizm. So far you have called me a liar and demeaned my intelligence. I hope you know what a bad Witness that is.

AuldSoul

Schizm

Since I can come up with many more scenarios of possible configurations than just this one, including the one you came up with .... --AuldSoul.

There you go again! To repeat what I've already said to you, and which you purposely ignored:

You couldn't have made it more plain that you believe the account is impossible to understand. If that were to be the case, that it is impossible to understand, then WHY was it made a part of the Scriptures?

It's very obvious that you've concluded that there is absolutely no way to understand the Lemech account. Thus you are one who accuses God of having placed in his inspired record, the Scriptures, something that is indecipherable. There is little wonder that YOU can't understand the account.

Now, can you see the problem with your storyline? A baby Naamah, a young man of 55...

You are either blind or you haven't listened to what I've already said. Listen: (1) The fact that Lamech had a daughter is made known. Why? (2) Her name is also made known. Why? Unless there is some specific reason for the reader being informed of these 2 facts it would have to be deemed needless information. You, apparently, believe that God would place needless information in his inspired record. I, of course, don't believe the same as you in this regard.

I haven't insulted you here, Schizm. So far you have called me a liar and demeaned my intelligence. I hope you know what a bad Witness that is.

Just another load of garbage that continues to flow out of you faultfinding mouth.

.

AuldSoul

I disagree with you. Disagreement is not garbage. Propaganda is garbage. Choke on it.

AuldSoul

Schizm

I disagree with you. Disagreement is not garbage. Propaganda is garbage. Choke on it.
AuldSoul

Just another load of garbage that continues to flow out of you faultfinding mouth.

Here's another load of your garbage: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/member/20281.ashx

.

Cygnus

What does Lamech have to do with the price of tea in China, or oil from the Persian gulf, or the cost of cable TV?

Schizm

What does Lamech have to do with the price of tea in China, or oil from the Persian gulf, or the cost of cable TV?

That's a most appropriate question you ask there, Cygnus. In essence you're asking: "What good does it do for a person to read about the affairs of a character named "Lamech"--a man that lived thousands of years ago?"

There is indeed a lesson that can be learned from the account. It has to do with the folly of pursuing a materialistic way of life; the unexpected calamities that can befall a person who makes materialism their prime concern. I hope to find the time to address your question more fully later.

.

What about Lamech's "wound"?

Share this