These old threads have such gems in them! I'm glad they are resurrected once-in-a-while!
You posted this delightful verse about that nitwit Samson and the idiotic WTS explanation:
: The words, "And [he] went in unto her," do not necessarily mean that he had relations with her
Then what "necessarily" did they mean, WTS morons?!
The next time I go "IN UNTO HER," with any woman, please be sure and explain that "IN" didn't really mean "IN" and "IN UNTO HER" didn't really mean that either. I wasn't really "IN" as in the word "IN" that most males and females know EXACTLY what "IN" means, and even if I WAS "IN" I wasn't really "IN" UNTO HER. It was the dog. No. It was the chicken. No, It is the evil apostates twisting what "IN HER" really means except that for several million years every male and every female knows what "IN HER" really means.
"I did not have sexual intercourse with THAT women. I may have been IN her, but I was not IN UNTO HER."
"What in the hell does THAT mean, "IN UNTO HER?"
"This is why Elizabethan English is so great. No one knows what in the hell stuff like that means."
"How do the modern English versions render that verse?"
"He boinked the heck out of her."
"That's pretty clear."
"Yep. That is pretty clear. So, why wasn't that said in the first place?"
"Because Elizabethan English can blur the shall we say, "fine lines" between guys and gals."
"You mean, a guy and a girl can boink and get away with it because old English obscures stuff?"
"Yeah, that's about it."
"You boinking chickens, dude?"
"Let me check my Elizabethan Dictionary. I'm sure I can give an answer that will totally obscure the facts...."
"Take your time, dude."