Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: al_c
Actually just the opposite. Becky helped the Catholic arguement with her use of "till." She in no way intended to say that Charlie is now uglier than you know what ... only that up to this day he was/is beautiful. See my point?

But thing about my "till" there was nothing after the "today". Tomorrow he will be beautiful "till" that today, so on and so forth. In the case of Matt. 1:25 something comes after the till, "she had brought him forth etc."

big difference in context.

Becky

24,270 posted on 02/05/2002 11:57:24 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24256 | View Replies ]


To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
But thing about my "till" there was nothing after the "today". Tomorrow he will be beautiful "till" that today, so on and so forth. In the case of Matt. 1:25 something comes after the till, "she had brought him forth etc."

You said "beautiful till today." Matt 1:25 says "no sex till she brought forth"

You didn't necessarily mean that after today your son is not beautiful. In fact you didn't mean that at all.

Matt 1:25 doesn't necessariily mean that after "she had brought forth" that she had sex. It is the exact same sentence construction. "Till" does not always mean that something has to change afterward. You have proven this.

You can argue that "till" does mean something changes in Matt 1:25, but you can not say it necessarily mean that.

SD

24,276 posted on 02/05/2002 12:03:03 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24270 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson