First human
Dave Gaban drrod@slip.net
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:14:30 -0800 (00891393270, 35214096.6CBE@slip.net)
box191@iland.net wrote:
>
> At 01:16 AM 3/31/98 -0800, Dave Gaban wrote:
> >>
> >> My purpose on this list is not to teach elementary subjects
> >> which anyone interested can look up for themselves. The word
> >> 'insect' at the time the King James Bible was translated did
> >> not mean a six-legged creature as it generally does now. The
> >> word insect then and now includes such creatures as spiders,
> >> ticks, and even centipedes. See _The Random House Dictionary
> >> of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition_ and the
> >> _Oxford Annotated Bible_.
> >>
> > DAVE G.
> >Oops, you made an error. The word "insect" does NOT now include spiders
> >and ticks (arachnida) that have eight legs while centipedes (Chilopoda)
> >usually have 1 pair of legs per segment for a total of between 15 and
> >177 pairs of legs (depending on species).
>
> Bullshit. Obviously you failed to read the citation I gave, so
> I'll quote it for you, teaching an elementary matter you could
> have looked up for yourself instead of appearing as an ignorant
> fool:
>
> "insect, ... 2. (loosely) any small arthropod, such as a spider,
> tick, or centipede, having a superficial, general similarity to
> the _Insecta_..." _The Random House Dictionary of the English
> Language, the Unabridged Edition_, page 735.
>
> You'd better learn the common meanings of words before attempting
> to debate the meanings of words which is all this group's Biblical
> criticisms seem to amount to. The word Insecta for the biological
> genus is not the same word 'insect' used by educated speakers of
> the English language.
>
> Dick Jones
DAVE G.
Sorry Dicko, Your dictionary is wrong. And what makes you think your
erronous dictionary definition was around when the King James version
was written?