Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50

“Dumping a list of everything the word meant over its entire historical existence does not provide for the correct interpretation, as you seem to suggest, by cherry-picking the meaning that appeals to the reader or reader’s agenda or preconceived notions the most. (sort of like the way Protestants interpret the Bible)”

Not one of those was listed as archaic, and infact, I’ve read often in 20th century books the more general use of the word “cousin.” That’s why it struck me to pull out the bulky big Oxford. “Cousin” is correct in the passage.


5,616 posted on 05/17/2008 8:34:58 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5615 | View Replies ]


To: John Leland 1789
Being obtuse is a choice, I suppose. Ask yourself, what is the likeleyhood that anyone reading Luke in KJV will conclude that Elizabeth and Mary were not necessarily close relatives, even first cousins, but distant relatives, or not even relatives at all?
5,618 posted on 05/17/2008 8:44:57 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5616 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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