[Thrash]

Maybe we should split this thread and entitle it "Pointless Arguing".

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Maybe we should split this thread and entitle it "Pointless Arguing".

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if "getting the thread closed" isn't noli's goal at this point

[nolidad]

None-the-less, I'll ask again for a clarification: What is the context you feel applies that would prohibit polygamy but not owning two horses?

There is no context of prohibiting polygamy but not owning two horses. The context was kings were prohibited from multiplying wives, horses, and gold in Deut.

What accusation? I don't see me accusing you of a single thing. I see me asking two questions and making a statement of my own.

nolidad Multiplying wives, as well as horses and silver and gold were prohibitions.
JerryLove Are you saying that having two horses or two pieces of gold is Biblically proscribed?[...]
nolidad in its context- yes it is prohibited.[...]
JerryLove So god forbids men to own two horses or have two pieces of gold ?!?
Forget worrying about marriage, there are a lot of farmers going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible.

one question- which I answered negatively and then one statement telling me what i beleive according to my interpretation (which is an untruth)

But let me ask you one thing:

If I posted three pages of linguistic studies showing tha monogamy was Gods design for marriage and the main verse that has been used to actively support polygamy ahs been parsed wrong- would you accept it or reject saying I am citing someone elses work?

If it is the latter then this is pointless arguing. If we cannot cite authority as you and all do in debates then there is no point in a debate- it is just thrashing ones opinion around.

I always follow my own rule: though given your apparent ignorance of the difference between citing a source and cut-n-pasting an argument: I'd imagine you are going to complain about every link... sadly not a specific complaint, nor a proper claim of a logical fallacy, but just a "you linked therefore I complain" kind of complaint

Well what is the difference?? Maybe the rule shave changed in the thirty years I left college- but acknowledging a source either by reference or placing the source in full view was "citing " back then. I never pretended it to be otherwise- whether citing a website, dictionary, expository or grammar book numerous times instead of just rewrting the words- I just copied the source I used fo rthe info I gained. Is this a faux pas in online debates? If it is then I do apologize and will just simply rewrite the worda and then refer to the source-- but I do ask in sincerity.

I do ask this because I have references to Hebrew experts - I was simply going to paste their materials--(for they are the source of my argument)--or am I supposed to just refer to their stuff and rewrite it in my own words and then cite their material as a source reference???

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if "getting the thread closed" isn't noli's goal at this point

they just inore you so i am going to say it guys
you have gone off the point a lot of pages ago
and you tow all at eachothers necks and now saying the other said this or that





I think you should cool off guys then come back and pm this
becuse guys i think i speak for a lot when i say
This thread needs to close

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

There is no context of prohibiting polygamy but not owning two horses. The context was kings were prohibited from multiplying wives, horses, and gold in Deut.

So kings were not allowed to have two wives or two horses?

This reads to me as advice against hording... such as where it's indicated King David wasn't doing right with 500 wives and 500 concubines; essentially against greed.

That advice would say nothing about polygamy. Can you tell me how the passage you used to say polygamy is bad actually says that?

one question- which I answered negatively and then one statement telling me what i beleive according to my interpretation (which is an untruth)

No. One statement as the the outcome of an interpretation I asked you if you were asserting.

If I posted three pages of linguistic studies showing tha monogamy was Gods design for marriage and the main verse that has been used to actively support polygamy ahs been parsed wrong- would you accept it or reject saying I am citing someone elses work?

A three page argument asserting a conclusion? I'd reject it as not your own. If you want to discuss the meaning of a specific word by pulling out sources like Strong's. I'd accept that the citation was "good form". I might or might not dispute the information. If you want to discuss how the Jews, or Early Christians felt and referenced an historical cite on that, that would be fine too.

It would be exactly like the spots where you've cited the Bible. I've not complained about the use of citation, but I've argued what you attempted to support with them.

There are two major criteria that separate citations and other people's arguments. One is generally length. The other is, well, whether it's an argument.

You may notice I've not posted a single link to the many websites arguing in favor of Biblical polygamy. It's not because they don't exist, but because they are not a citation. They are a cut-n-paste argument.

You need to make your own arguments. That doesn't mean you cannot reference others for your facts: you certainly can. But three pages of someone else's argument? Where does that lead? Why should I do anything but put up three pages of yet another person saying something else. That's not a discussion.

Well what is the difference?? Maybe the rule shave changed in the thirty years I left college- but acknowledging a source either by reference or placing the source in full view was "citing " back then. I never pretended it to be otherwise- whether citing a website, dictionary, expository or grammar book numerous times instead of just rewrting the words- I just copied the source I used fo rthe info I gained. Is this a faux pas in online debates? If it is then I do apologize and will just simply rewrite the worda and then refer to the source-- but I do ask in sincerity.

When I was in college, less than 30 years ago, what you did would have been called plagiarism.

If I say "Patton was a good leader" and then cite sources discussing good things he did, I've done research. If I say "Patton was a good leader" and then cut-and-paste someone else's argument that Patton was a good leader, calling it a cite, then I've plagiarized. The rules are the same here.

I do ask this because I have references to Hebrew experts - I was simply going to paste their materials--(for they are the source of my argument)--or am I supposed to just refer to their stuff and rewrite it in my own words and then cite their material as a source reference???

References about the meaning of a specific word in a passage you are yourself arguing? That's fine. Support for an historical claim you are making? Also fine.

Cites bring in facts; rarely do they legitimately add opinions. The point is for *you* to argue your own position. The citations themselves should really not be in dispute. They should not be arguments for your conclusion.

When I cited an historical text discussing charges of fornication in 1610, that was legit. If I had cited someone else on CGR saying "fornication is not pre-marital sex", then it would not have been.

If you need more clarification on this, please google "appeal to authority", also please look in my FAQ.

[adamwagg]

I think we've run out of new debate. I'm closing it.