|
|
Post by heeeeey on Mar 31, 2019 16:13:31 GMT
Doesn't it mean that something came before, and now it needs to be 're'plenished?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 16:25:35 GMT
Not really, no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 16:42:27 GMT
Doesn't it mean that something came before, and now it needs to be 're'plenished? Yes, it means to refill or restore. You can't replenish something which was never there in the first place. And to "Ned Kelly":  <<< [gay eyes] Exactly, to refill. OP said 'something' came before... If I had coriander seeds in my spice rack, and ran out... I couldn't 'replenish' them with mustard seeds. That would be to 'replace' them. 'Something' came before is not replenishing. Replenishing is like for like. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 31, 2019 17:54:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Mar 31, 2019 18:33:49 GMT
Yes, it means to refill or restore. You can't replenish something which was never there in the first place. And to "Ned Kelly": <<< [gay eyes] Exactly, to refill. OP said 'something' came before... If I had coriander seeds in my spice rack, and ran out... I couldn't 'replenish' them with mustard seeds. That would be to 'replace' them. 'Something' came before is not replenishing. Replenishing is like for like. Right. It means there was something there before, and now it needs to be replenished.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 31, 2019 18:54:52 GMT
OK, I know you have some hidden agenda, where are you going with this? I know you're trying to play some sort of words games about the conciousness, I'm just not sure what angle you're playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2019 20:45:01 GMT
OK, I know you have some hidden agenda, where are you going with this? I know you're trying to play some sort of words games about the conciousness, I'm just not sure what angle you're playing. Who really cares? Though it might be amusing to see what level of stupid she comes up with next! If I had to guess to pre-empt her, it would be the concept that the consciousness enters a person at some stage to replenish their 'soul' and doesn't evolve with the development of that person's consciousness as a living zygote, embryo, foetus, baby and then developing human brain. Much what she said before. She is quite transparent. Same old same old tripe click bait again.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Mar 31, 2019 21:48:14 GMT
OK, I know you have some hidden agenda, where are you going with this? I know you're trying to play some sort of words games about the conciousness, I'm just not sure what angle you're playing. Who really cares? Though it might be amusing to see what level of stupid she comes up with next! If I had to guess to pre-empt her, it would be the concept that the consciousness enters a person at some stage to replenish their 'soul' and doesn't evolve with the development of that person's consciousness as a living zygote, embryo, foetus, baby and then developing human brain. Much what she said before. She is quite transparent. Same old same old tripe click bait again. This topic has nothing to do with consciousness. I'm referring to the book of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 31, 2019 22:00:10 GMT
OK, I know you have some hidden agenda, where are you going with this? I know you're trying to play some sort of words games about the consciousness, I'm just not sure what angle you're playing. Let's not give her too much credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 31, 2019 23:23:49 GMT
Means I'm not drunk enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2019 23:43:46 GMT
Who really cares? Though it might be amusing to see what level of stupid she comes up with next! If I had to guess to pre-empt her, it would be the concept that the consciousness enters a person at some stage to replenish their 'soul' and doesn't evolve with the development of that person's consciousness as a living zygote, embryo, foetus, baby and then developing human brain. Much what she said before. She is quite transparent. Same old same old tripe click bait again. This topic has nothing to do with consciousness. I'm referring to the book of Genesis. Oh! That is interesting coming from a poster who has claimed recently that she is neither Catholic nor religious anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Mar 31, 2019 23:56:20 GMT
This topic has nothing to do with consciousness. I'm referring to the book of Genesis. Oh! That is interesting coming from a poster who has claimed recently that she is neither Catholic nor religious anymore. And you accuse me of telling you what you believe. Philosophers and even atheists discuss the Bible. It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2019 0:06:26 GMT
Oh! That is interesting coming from a poster who has claimed recently that she is neither Catholic nor religious anymore. And you accuse me of telling you what you believe. Philosophers and even atheists discuss the Bible. It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. I am only repeating what you said. Great. Now you know what replenish means. Great thread. An improvement I must say!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2019 0:58:11 GMT
OK, I know you have some hidden agenda, where are you going with this? I know you're trying to play some sort of words games about the conciousness, I'm just not sure what angle you're playing. Who really cares? Though it might be amusing to see what level of stupid she comes up with next! If I had to guess to pre-empt her, it would be the concept that the consciousness enters a person at some stage to replenish their 'soul' and doesn't evolve with the development of that person's consciousness as a living zygote, embryo, foetus, baby and then developing human brain. Much what she said before. She is quite transparent. Same old same old tripe click bait again. You care. You replied because you care.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Apr 1, 2019 1:01:32 GMT
If only there was a web site or a book you could use to look up the meaning of a word...
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Apr 1, 2019 1:10:48 GMT
If only there was a web site or a book you could use to look up the meaning of a word... If only you weren't too stupid to recognize an intent behind a question.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Apr 1, 2019 1:12:29 GMT
The reason for the question is to illustrate how the Bible is misinterpreted, even though the information is right there.
Clearly, Adam and Eve were not the first humans on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Apr 1, 2019 1:24:46 GMT
If only there was a web site or a book you could use to look up the meaning of a word... If only you weren't too stupid to recognize an intent behind a question. If only you weren't too stupid to recognize the fact that that my comment comes not from a failure to understand your intent, but a failure to care.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 1, 2019 2:00:49 GMT
Who really cares? Though it might be amusing to see what level of stupid she comes up with next! If I had to guess to pre-empt her, it would be the concept that the consciousness enters a person at some stage to replenish their 'soul' and doesn't evolve with the development of that person's consciousness as a living zygote, embryo, foetus, baby and then developing human brain. Much what she said before. She is quite transparent. Same old same old tripe click bait again. You care. You replied because you care. Not really. If you read my post it was written to see how stupid her reasons could possibly be for such an idiotic OP. Shadrack doesn't care much either. I mean who would?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 1, 2019 2:19:33 GMT
You care. You replied because you care. Not really. If you read my post it was written to see how stupid her reasons could possibly be for such an idiotic OP. Shadrack doesn't care much either. I mean who would? If you don't care, then stay the hell off the thread and stop being insulting.
|
|
