Jump to content

Belief In Fantasy Gods. Literalists And Fundamentals.


Recommended Posts

Why the **** do you think the text of Genesis refers to the Tree by that name? If I write a fable with a character I call Jack Blueberry-eater, wouldn't you feel an "interpretation" in which he doesn't eat blueberries to be suspect?
The phrase which is translated as "good and evil" here is most probably a figure of speech which refers to pairs of opposites, not specifically good and evil.
Also: Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater has nothing to do with eating pumpkins.Personally, I don't think the story in and of itself is illogical.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another small point. In Genesis chapter 2:9 where the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is first mentioned, there is also mentioned another tree mentioned; the Tree of Life.Are you going to next make the claim that until Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life they will not be alive?Later God cast them out of Eden so that they cannot eat the fruit from this tree, because they will then live forever. The name of that tree was not the definition of what the fruit of that tree did either.So man was made perfect, and designed to live forever.Then when man brought sin into himself, he lost his destiny to live for ever. God did not want man to live forever if he was plagued with a sin nature. But Christ on the cross took away our sin nature, and nailed it to the cross, so that when we pass from this world to the next, we no longer have this stain on our soul. And then we will be able to live forever again, like we were designed for in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All you said was that I don't get it, I need to reread this with a different mindset to understand why this isn't what I think it is. You never once presented any reason for this explanation, so forgive me for not knowing what your point was when you went out of your way to not present it.
Is it really such a crazy idea to read the actual text and try to understand it?
Yet as I have pointed out 4 times now, this is the explanation from Satan, not God, of what will happen when you eat the fruit of this tree.
Yeah, and it's stupid every time. God named the tree. He could have named it "The Tree of Dying" or "The Tree of ****ing Poison that you shouldn't eat, dumbass".
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
16The LORD God (Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it ®you will surely die."
That's the name of the ****ing tree in the story. It's not the name that Satan invented. Get it?And then they don't die that day. God wasn't telling the whole truth, because he wanted them to stay innocent.Feel free to argue that "day" doesn't really mean day, it could mean era or some shit. Great, "day" might mean by the hand of Cthulu. It might mean banana. It might mean any manner of different things if we give up the notion that words have meanings and just make up shit to fit with our preformed theology.
God only said that if you eat from this tree, you will die. He never said you will gain the knowledge of good and evil.
Is your God retarded? Why would he name the Tree this if it was a lie? Why would he put it in the ****ing garden? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the ****ing Tree of Original Sin in Australia with a big ****ing skull and crossbones if you didn't want Adam to eat from it?
From what school of thought would anyone read a story where the bad guy lies to a woman and we are supposed to take the lie he spoke as truth for the real meaning behind the story?
The school of thought in which God isn't a sadistic lying bastard and the story is meant to explain how mankind came to know good from evil.
Adam and Eve sinned, and with sin comes separation from God. Their nakedness can be interrupted as their souls being exposed to God because they had stained them.
It could be interpreted as them not wearing any clothes.
The literal translation that they were ashamed of their physical nakedness is clarified when God asked Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" The fact is, being aware of being naked isn't good or evil, so why would their 'gaining the knowledge of good and evil" make them aware of being naked if that is in fact what they received from the tree?
You might have something there, but I think it's hard for you to argue that becoming aware of nakedness is more like dying than knowing.
In other words, the act of being ashamed could not enter a perfect man, so he must have gotten it from an outside source. Other than being aware of their nakedness, the only other change that Adam and Eve exhibited is the ability to lie to God and to pass off the blame. Eve said 'it's not my fault, it was the snake who tricked me'. Adam said 'it's not my fault, it was the woman, who by the way, You gave me!'We have no record or ability to make the assumption that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil before the fruit was eaten. Only way you can make this leap is to believe that Satan was telling them the truth. So unless you are defending Satan, then you are misunderstanding the text, and cussing at me only weakens your position.
Oh **** off.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some other verses where the same Hebrew word for day that is used when God says: "If you eat from this tree, on that DAY you shall surely die"I will bold the word word Yown so you can see how it is used at other times.Gen 3:14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; Gen 4:3So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.1Ch 22:9 'Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.Same Hebrew word, with meanings that are drawn from the context, as are many words in Hebrew.Strong's Concordance has this word appearing 2287 times in the Old TestamentThis is the definitions:

1) day, time, yeara) day (as opposed to night)b) day (24 hour period)1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 12) as a division of timea) a working day, a day's journeyc) days, lifetime (pl.)d) time, period (general)e) yearf) temporal references1) today2) yesterday3) tomorrow
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point you seem to be hung up on is that the tree is called the Tree of the Knowledge of good and Evil.What does that mean? Does it mean that without eating the fruit you do not know the difference? Or does it mean that you now know that some things are wrong and some things are right?How can you have a person without these traits. Could Adam not have known that killing Eve was bad? could Eve have suffocated her next baby as easily as feeding him and been completely indifferent to either action? Were they both complete and total sociopaths? That doesn't seem to be the case.Then you have the story itself. God gave them conditions about this tree. If you eat the fruit, you will die.Eve when recounting this to the serpent and reworded it to say: "If you eat the fruit, or touch the tree, you will die"When she ate the fruit, she liked it, and gave some to Adam. If she now knew the difference between right and wrong, then her eating the fruit was one thing, but when she offered it to Adam it was a whole other thing. She had full knowledge when she handed the fruit to Adam, who was 'innocent'.But the effects caused by this were they began to die, right at that moment, their bodies began the process of dying. Coming from perfection, their bodies broke down much slower than ours, because ours have been diluted for thousands of years, this is the supposed reason why they lived as long as they did, hundreds of years.By your definition, would God have been wrong if after they ate the fruit, they lived 1 minute, then their lungs stopped working?Of course you can see that the process of dying is one that begins and ends. Whether it's over an hour like from a heart attack, a second like from a bullet in the brain, or a year like from cancer.So God didn't lie. They began to die form that moment on. they were not going to die if they didn't eat the fruit, now they are.What does the meaning of the name Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil mean then?It means that now they had experiential knowledge of sin, they had just committed it. They now knew the experience of being separated from God ( The Bible in the NT tells us that sin separates us from the Love of God. )Their knowledge was that they now knew sin. Before they only knew God's love and their love back to Him. They made decisions about doing things that pleased God, because they wanted to please God. Satan painted a picture that eating the fruit gave them supernatural knowledge, but exactly what did Adam and Eve show from that day forward? Only shame and guilt. The story itself explains the effects of the tree, not the words spoken of by the serpent who was tricking them into eating the fruit because he hated them. He wants them to die, he wants all of God's children to suffer and die. And he uses the oldest trick in the book, pretending to grant knowledge that actually only leads to death. He offers a chance to be like God, but instead only gives separation from God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea you've kind of changed your normal conversational ways.I don't know what's wrong, but I hope you feel better
I'm not having a bad day. This particular issue just sets me off. I have a serious problem with the idea that the bible requires an extra special secret decoder ring to "really" understand, some special people possess this ring, and the meaning of the scripture just happens to line up with these special people's agenda. I'm sure you honestly perceive that you're not buying into an agenda, but I hope and suspect you can understand why this is upsetting to me when I perceive that it is happening.
Genesis 3The Fall of Man 1Now (A)the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "(B)From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4©The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and (D)you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6(E)When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they (F)knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. 8They heard the sound of (G)the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, (H)and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "(I)Where are you?" 10He said, "(J)I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." 11And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12(K)The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "(L)The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 14The LORD God said to the serpent, "(M)Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And (N)dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put (O)enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; (P)He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." 16To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will (Q)bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And ®he will rule over you." 17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; (S)Cursed is the ground because of you; (T)In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you (U)return to the ground, Because (V)from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return." 20Now the man called his wife's name [a](W)Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of (X)Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from (Y)the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24So (Z)He drove the man out; and at the (AA)east of the garden of Eden He stationed the (AB)cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to (AC)the tree of life.
How can I, a mere mortal, possibly hope to glean any meaning from any scripture if this doesn't mean what I think it means?
  1. God named a tree 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'
  2. Adam & Eve ate the fruit.
  3. Then God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;"

Did you seriously read Genesis and conclude -- from Genesis -- that the forbidden fruit didn't grant knowledge?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Same Hebrew word, with meanings that are drawn from the context, as are many words in Hebrew.
Is it your position that I need to read the bible in all of the original languages to understand it, or is there a translation upon which I can rely to give me the meaning in English?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also: Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater has nothing to do with eating pumpkins.
This is a serious issue demanding scholarship.Given the information in the rhyme, I believe the author intended me to believe that Peter did in fact eat pumpkins. We have:
  • His name.
  • pumpkin shells

A pumpkin shell doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to keep a wife in, so I can more easily see him using it (as opposed to say, a cage) because they were lying around. Given no other explanation for what happened to the innards of the pumpkin, I'm happy to believe he ate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not having a bad day. This particular issue just sets me off. I have a serious problem with the idea that the bible requires an extra special secret decoder ring to "really" understand, some special people possess this ring, and the meaning of the scripture just happens to line up with these special people's agenda. I'm sure you honestly perceive that you're not buying into an agenda, but I hope and suspect you can understand why this is upsetting to me when I perceive that it is happening.
I guess I can understand, it just seems to be a kind of small thing to become so emotionally invested in.My interpretation comes from reading the whole chapter. Looking at who said what, and what happened.The notion that they gained knowledge isn't the relevant issue to the cause and effect. The introduction of sin and the consequences of this are the relevant issues.Even if they gained a fully new set of thinking processes through the eating of the fruit, it is secondary to the effect of their dying.As such I am only saying that you focusing on the one secondary issue is distracting you from the important part of this story.
How can I, a mere mortal, possibly hope to glean any meaning from any scripture if this doesn't mean what I think it means?
  1. God named a tree 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'
  2. Adam & Eve ate the fruit.
  3. Then God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;"

Did you seriously read Genesis and conclude -- from Genesis -- that the forbidden fruit didn't grant knowledge?

I don't know what that knowledge means in the sense that they didn't know before X, and now they know what X is. To argue that they were without the ability to know not to kill children before eating the fruit doesn't seem likely, so unless you can show me what they were supposed to be before and then show me what they became, then it's only speculation that I can't pick a side on.Plus the other tree's name allows for the notion that it's name is not the 100% only thing this tree is about. I mean the Tree of Life is being ignored, even though they are grouped together before. Yet you are not bothered by the Tree of Life not being the only way for Adam and Eve to live. Why not allow the same allowance for mystery for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to be secondary to the induction of sin. The entire message of the Bible from beginning to end is about sin entering our lives, us dealing with it, God releasing us from it's control and the eventual triumph over all sin forever.That's why I am treating this section as I am. It fits in the whole message correctly.I just never had you go off on me before. I mean you got really riled up, and it seemed very out of character. I have seen you as a person who completely disagrees with me, but allows the conversation to go forward with the intention of challenging my beliefs and presenting your own. These last few posts don't fit that image I have of you.I would have thought the slavery issue would have been a reasonable one to misunderstand and go off on, but this seems really benign to become so incensed over.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it your position that I need to read the bible in all of the original languages to understand it, or is there a translation upon which I can rely to give me the meaning in English?
I have found that often times the meaning of Hebrew words in other contexts grants a wider view into their meaning and as such can allow for us to find out as much as possible of teh original meaning.Take the word we translate into Love, there are 3 major differences in this word;Eros means erotic love, the love a man feels for women we are aroused by.Philoe means a brotherly love, like between good friends.Agape means an all encompassing love, like the love God commands us to have for one another.Each of these are translated as Love in the english, but looking at which Hebrew or Greek word gives us a deeper understanding of the passages.My only intent was to show that the word day can mean a measure of time, not only a single 24 hour period. In this instance maybe I was wrong to try to use this, because as I said, I believe that Adam began dying right away. When you go from eternal to dying, the span of a few hundred years isn't really that long to argue that it didn't happen the way God said it did.From another perspective, the fact that Adam didn't keel over meant that either God never said they would die immediately, or that God was wrong.Of those two choices I don't think it likely that this is enough to warrant believing that God is the one who didn't get what He said, it is much more likely that we are the ones who didn't understand what He meant. After all, you are allowing that God said this, then saying He's not God because God can't be wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Her is an explanation of this from a Bible based apologetic's site:Since everything else God planted in the garden was good, the natural choice of something to choose from would be knowledge of evil. God's plan for Adam and Eve was to enjoy each other and their fellowship with Him without the influence of evil. God did not want Adam and Eve to experience evil or even know about it. However, Satan had already rebelled against God and then tempted Eve to join him in rebellion against God. Satan used the oldest ploy in his playbook of deceit - God is a cosmic killjoy who is trying to keep something good from you.2 Satan first asked Eve about the tree from which they were told not to eat.3 Eve told Satan they were not to eat of the forbidden fruit or they would die. Satan's reply indicated that God was a liar and that He just wanted to keep something good (the fruit) from them, saying, "God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."3 So, Adam and Eve gained knowledge of the difference between good and evil through direct experience, instead of through instruction by God. The text suggests that Adam and Eve had enjoyed daily walks with God through the garden prior to their fall (Genesis 3:8). The knowledge of evil brought fear and shame to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:10).4 So, the knowledge of good and evil was not a good thing, since it ruined their innocent relationship with God and each other.Return to innocence?This is somewhat speculative, but I believe that we believers will lose our knowledge of evil in heaven. Isaiah 25:85 says that God will wipe all the tears from us and our reproach will be removed (see also Revelation 7:17 and 21:4).6 We will be able to experience and enjoy God directly7 without influence or knowledge of sin and evil.Conclusion:Skeptics claim that God set up Adam and eve to fail by giving them a test that was either too difficult or deceptive. However, the Bible makes it clear that God gave Adam and Eve all they needed - with lots of different trees from which to eat fruit. It is clear that Eve knew she should not eat from the one tree in the middle of the garden that she was instructed to avoid. Instead of believing God and trusting Him, after all He had done for them, Eve chose to believe the lies of Satan (in snake form), and believed that God was lying to her. She ate the forbidden fruit and convinced her husband to do the same, resulting in their loss of innocence and a broken relationship with God and each other. Yes, they now had knowledge of good and evil, but it wasn't quite as originally advertised by the snake. We still have the same choice as Adam and Eve. We can gain the knowledge of evil by directly participating in it or we can believe God and avoid the things He has said are bad for us.So the method of their learning about Good and Evil was not a group of ideas, or a textbook style set of instruction, they found the knowledge of good and evil by their actions of eating the fruit. They chose to disobey, this was all that they gained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what that knowledge means in the sense that they didn't know before X, and now they know what X is. To argue that they were without the ability to know not to kill children before eating the fruit doesn't seem likely, so unless you can show me what they were supposed to be before and then show me what they became, then it's only speculation that I can't pick a side on.
This strikes me as an odd place to start judging meaning by what seems likely. Does a woman formed from a rib seem likely? Does a talking snake seem likely? (Hint: no) We just accept those as part of the message of the story because that is what it says. Genesis says that God knows that man became more like him -- knowing good from evil -- by eating the forbidden fruit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Take the word we translate into Love, there are 3 major differences in this word;Eros means erotic love, the love a man feels for women we are aroused by.Philoe means a brotherly love, like between good friends.Agape means an all encompassing love, like the love God commands us to have for one another.Each of these are translated as Love in the english, but looking at which Hebrew or Greek word gives us a deeper understanding of the passages.
Sure, sometimes the original language is more expressive than English, but I don't think it's insurmountable. If it's important to make the distinction between the types of loves, there's no reason the translator can't write something like "love as between brothers" if it's important to the meaning of the passage.
Link to post
Share on other sites
How could they know that disobeying was bad before they knew of the difference between good and evil? There was no bad and good to them before they ate.
Because the story makes sense only as a metaphor. It's actually quite a nice story if you read it in terms of literature from a few millennia ago. It's quite advanced for its time, thematically. To me, the main idea is that the self awareness of human beings is a blessing and a curse. Eating the apple represents our emergence from a Rousseauain state of nature into a civilized and conscious people. This is what putting on clothing represents. It means building houses and cities to separate us from nature. It means that we became intelligent to create frameworks such as morality and justice. From that moment on and forevermore, we are able to view the world through these frameworks. Think the opening scene of 2001.The animals in the garden don't have these. They act purely through instinct, not through reason or purpose. They know not evil or good because those are human constructs. Biting the apple gave us reason, which gave us good, but also gave us evil. The two are a ying and yang, and if you create one, you create the other. This is what genesis is. It's the creation of modern man.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a serious issue demanding scholarship.Given the information in the rhyme, I believe the author intended me to believe that Peter did in fact eat pumpkins. We have:
  • His name.
  • pumpkin shells

A pumpkin shell doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to keep a wife in, so I can more easily see him using it (as opposed to say, a cage) because they were lying around. Given no other explanation for what happened to the innards of the pumpkin, I'm happy to believe he ate them.

Man, I had to scroll through a lot of noise to get to the real issue."Had a wife and couldn't keep her" means that she was cheating on him.Pumpkin shell was a name for chastity belts (as in metal underwear with lock and key) back in those days. Once he got her in the chastity belt, things were fine.He's called a pumpkin eater because, well, you know.(Chances of any of the above being true: 15%)
Link to post
Share on other sites
It was about being lied to and then being tempted by the desire to 'be like God' The serpent said : "Surely God did not say that" then tried to change what God said to:"What He meant was that once you eat of it, you will be like Him".Focusing on what the serpent said as being the important part is kind of psycho..I mean the story clearly shows that he lied to Eve, and that he lied because he wanted Adam and Eve to suffer. Now you are focusing on what he lied about and trying to argue that there is a deeper lesson that makes his LIE the valuable thing. This is a really bad thing to do.
Let's back up a second.What statements by the serpent do you think were lies and what do you think were truths? Can you support these evaluations from Genesis?What from Genesis tells us the motivation of the serpent?What from Genesis tells us that Adam was originally immortal?Are all the animals intelligent and speaking? I.e., why didn't the dialog go like this? 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 5.5 And Eve said, "What the hell? That snake just talked to me! Did anybody else hear that?"6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, . . .
Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, I had to scroll through a lot of noise to get to the real issue."Had a wife and couldn't keep her" means that she was cheating on him.Pumpkin shell was a name for chastity belts (as in metal underwear with lock and key) back in those days. Once he got her in the chastity belt, things were fine.He's called a pumpkin eater because, well, you know.(Chances of any of the above being true: 15%)
Seems pretty speculative without sources. Perhaps there's something in Revelation that clears it up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God,As I carve my pumpkin help me say this prayer:Open my mind so I can learn about You;(Cut the top of the pumpkin)Take away all my sin and forgive me for the wrong things I do.(Clean out the inside)Open my eyes so Your love I will see;(Cut the eyes out in heart shapes)I'm so sorry for turning up my nose to all you've given me.(Cut a nose in the shape of a cross)Open my ears so your word I will hear.(Cut the ears shaped like the Bible)-we did rectanglesOpen my mouth so I can tell others You're near(cut the mouth in the shape of a fish)Let Your light shine in all I say and do!(Place a candle inside and light it) Amen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the story makes sense only as a metaphor. It's actually quite a nice story if you read it in terms of literature from a few millennia ago. It's quite advanced for its time, thematically. To me, the main idea is that the self awareness of human beings is a blessing and a curse. Eating the apple represents our emergence from a Rousseauain state of nature into a civilized and conscious people. This is what putting on clothing represents. It means building houses and cities to separate us from nature. It means that we became intelligent to create frameworks such as morality and justice. From that moment on and forevermore, we are able to view the world through these frameworks. Think the opening scene of 2001.The animals in the garden don't have these. They act purely through instinct, not through reason or purpose. They know not evil or good because those are human constructs. Biting the apple gave us reason, which gave us good, but also gave us evil. The two are a ying and yang, and if you create one, you create the other. This is what genesis is. It's the creation of modern man.
SOMEBODY didn't read the previous page! But yeah I agree with you completely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
SOMEBODY
In Hebrew the word here is Sheltva, which can also mean Nobody as in the phrase Ain't nobodys knows the trouble I's seen.
didn't
In Hebrew the word is Tafluey, from which we get the word Hooyee Which of course means many things but mostly cares..
read the
The Hebrew word here pretty much means read, or to know intuitively
previous
The Hebrew word here can mean many things, but usually it means before or forever.
page!
The Hebrews didn't really have a word for page, since the concept of a book was different, so this word is untranslatable, but I will anyway and say it means mind
But yeah
Oi Vey
I agree
Past participle denotes a meaning of everyone knows this.
with you
The Hebrew here is Kiszats..which means to want to build a coalition by favoring someone in random ways.
completely.
The Hebrew word here is funny because it can mean totally, or it can mean almost totally.So the Hebrew translation of your post is basically:Nobody care to know what in the past you've thought of, so MAN can you stop kissing my rear with your whole mouth.Yea the tone in this thread is really going down hill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...