In the Spirit of Sankof and Truth1
sister cherryblossom,
My take on this discussion remains the same, it has been non-productive and should have ended earlier. I don't buy the attempt to escape from answering why you felt the need to put Deuteronomy 29 to me. How do you explain being frivolously redundant, what was the point? Do you honestly think that I am unaware of its meaning, if so, that is terribly disrepectful.
Finally, I have not, as you say, internalized this discussion nor taken it personally. Why is there a need to establish this false preception?
Yes, Brother Clyde, both YOUR extrapolation and MINE is MOOT, which is exactly the applicable root of this discussion.
And I never intended to "sway" you either, Brother Clyde....Likewise, I was putting another point of view on the table. When I used the word "sway," that was in direct response to YOUR statement that I could not "REMOVE" you from YOUR understanding....So, okay. YOU said "remove" and I said "sway." But, CONTEXTUALLY, don't those two words mean the SAME THING?------NOW, WHO'S "SPLITTING HAIRS??"
And, I wasn't "putting words in your mouth." ---I asked a question.--YOU introduced the Hebrew words for "mark" and "hedge." So, my QUESTION related to Hebrew grammar usage in the books of Job and Genesis.
However, all throughout this debate, I simply saw an exchange of differing opinions....YOU saw "SHALLOWNESS" and "UGLINESS."
Again, Brother Clyde, your language here smacks of you internalizing this debate, taking this personally.
However, if Deuteronomy 29:29 is applicable to others when attempting to "interpret" or "extrapolate" Biblical scripture, then it is also applicable to YOU.
As you also agreed, "NO ONE knows what the mark was placed on Cain." Therefore, it is a MOOT point, i.e. "arguable" and "debatable."
sister cherryblossom,
My take on this discussion remains the same, it has been non-productive and should have ended earlier. I don't buy the attempt to escape from answering why you felt the need to put Deuteronomy 29 to me. How do you explain being frivolously redundant, what was the point? Do you honestly think that I am unaware of its meaning, if so, that is terribly disrepectful.
Finally, I have not, as you say, internalized this discussion nor taken it personally. Why is there a need to establish this false preception?