Originally Posted by
Craig B
I've been thinking about that, and I think I know where the nonsense comes from. Recently the word "discovered" has frequently been applied in two particular contexts:
- finding things that have never been seen before, or were previously unknown; as in the discovery of a new sub atomic particle at CERN
- finding things that have been intentionally concealed, as in the discovery by Allied cryptanalysis of the secret keys for the Enigma cipher machine during WW2.
Now Paul seems to think that by referring to the "discovery" of a sexual liaison, it must be being implied that this activity was intentionally concealed - by the joint agreement of both participants - so it must therefore have been consensual.
Even if this argument was valid - and it is utterly ludicrous - Deuteronomy was not composed in English, and therefore conclusions that might or might not be drawn from an English word, used in translation of the original term, are of no moment whatever.
Wut? Wait...
Here it almost seems that you are implying that depending upon
interpretations of
translations can lead to inaccuracies, turning exegesis into indogesis...
Whodathunkit?