All Activity

Your ability to understand what someone actually said is as spot on as the fool who decided that Sanders said 'we had 6 years left before climate catastrophe wiped us out'. Try to listen to and understand his words... they matter. Bwha haa haa Fool...

"Unfortunately, the modern versions follow the Greek N.T. produced by these two heretics." Whether Westcott and Hort were heretics is a separate question from whether a particular manuscript reading is original. That is still a genetic argument. A textual variant is not determined by the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the person who edited or favored it. "Yes, it was their personal belief that the KJV was to be rejected and replaced..." Again, this doesn't answer my point. Their opinion of the KJV has no bearing on whether a reading in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is closer to the original autograph. The manuscript evidence stands or falls on its own. "They rejected the Majority Text..." That's true. They favored an eclectic text based on what they believed was stronger manuscript evidence. The question is whether they were right, not whether they rejected the Majority Text. Simply restating that they disagreed with the Majority Text isn't an argument that they were wrong. "Those two men were heretics..." You've repeated this several times. But repeating it doesn't make it relevant. If an atheist discovered a first-century manuscript tomorrow, its textual value wouldn't depend on his theology. Likewise, if an orthodox Christian copied a manuscript incorrectly, the copy wouldn't become accurate because the scribe held sound doctrine. "The two corrupt manuscripts found in the Catholic church..." This is another unsupported assertion. Calling Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "corrupt" is the conclusion you're trying to prove. The fact they were preserved in the Vatican or in a monastery does not itself demonstrate textual corruption. Their readings must be evaluated on textual evidence. "They came from the depraved city of Alexandria, Egypt and were probably changed by the heretics Origen..." Notice the progression: Alexandria was corrupt. Origen was a heretic. Therefore the manuscripts are corrupt. That is still guilt by association. Where is the manuscript evidence demonstrating that Origen altered these manuscripts? "Probably" is not evidence. "There is no debate really about which manuscripts are the true ones." This is simply incorrect. There is an entire academic discipline devoted to New Testament textual criticism. Majority Text advocates, Byzantine Priority advocates, Textus Receptus advocates, and Critical Text scholars have debated these questions for centuries. You may conclude the Majority Text is correct. It is not accurate to claim there is no debate. "Age of them doesn't prove anything." I agree. Age alone does not prove a manuscript is superior. But neither does numerical majority. Every textual critic weighs multiple factors, including age, geographical distribution, manuscript families, internal evidence, scribal tendencies, and external attestation. Very few scholars argue that age alone settles the matter. "They could have survived simply because they were rejected by the early church..." They could have. Or they could have survived because Egypt's dry climate preserved manuscripts exceptionally well while heavily used manuscripts elsewhere simply wore out through centuries of copying and public reading. Both are possible explanations. Neither is proof. Ultimately, I think you're illustrating the point I originally made. The discussion keeps returning to Westcott, Hort, the Vatican, Alexandria, and Origen. But textual criticism is ultimately about the manuscripts themselves. If we're going to argue that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are corrupt, then let's examine the textual evidence demonstrating that corruption, rather than primarily appealing to where they were preserved or the theological opinions of nineteenth-century editors.

That was supposed to happen by 2010 originally. These shysters just keep moving the goalposts, and the stupid sheep just keep lapping up the lies.

Well, you seem to exclusively watch it, obsessing over it, and you are one of the dumbest posters on this forum...

I swear, you are like some odd version of a random chat bot that just spits out random nonsense.

Another worthless spam thread...

I see you are still pushing this BS statistic.

1 to 2% of GDP? Proposing 5%, but half would be private investment

Of course this thread turns into the typical anti-vax BS. This is not even a published, peer-reviewed study. Also, notice the tiny admission in the bottom right corner. LOL "The study authors note that the findings show associations and do not prove causation."

He's not the one with the credibility problem. That would be you and your little buddy there.

You should spend a lot of time thinking about other people's butts Google.com says it was the result of peer reviewed science and a federal inquiry.

No estimates anywhere suggest anything of the kind and every time you're asked to provide some sort of evidence you can't Google.com says there's zero, nada, none, no chance 1.5 billion people will be coming to canada by 2050 or even by 2250. This is just the Doomsday alarmism you sell it has no truth and it's not based in science and only appeals to people who are slightly dumber than the folks who thought the war of the world's radio broadcast was actually happening. Nothing you say has anything to do with anything other than your own imagination. So you're approval basically is what drives your entire argument. Never falsehoods you've made up and decided to promote is true or what you put forward. That's why you can never come up with a single ounce of proof or any science to support your position

You: Also you " a few minutes earlier" : LOLOL It would take a team of top notch comedy writers to make you look more stupid than you make yourself look

Too funny, eh?

"AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!"

No, the way to stop them is to keep voting for Republicans.

A politician who pulled it out of their butt.

Diversity stress is when everyone thinks sweet&sour pork, chicken wings and chow mein is good Chinese food When they think the main ingredient in spaghetti sauce is hamburger When sushi is barely palatable, costs $50 and the chef wears a turban When every pizza place in town has an outlet and none offer anchovies When strydel is chewy not flakey, when schnitzel is pounded breaded chicken breast When you're st the BBQ grilling ribs on a Sunday and the Arabs next door are both at work but their 8 year old is peering over the fence drooling... When you have to explain to someone at KFC that solly nobless ownee duck mitt means they're out of white meat or the suppliers big ceylon hodd dlye means thees a deal on hard drives. That te guy hitting on you for change outside the beer store is not a representative of his race, he's an alcoholic. That the guy in the suit and tie walking down the street is the one out of place. ot the saris, the beaded coloured skirts, the nose ring or turban or the head scarf in 2026

Credibility.

Some estimates put the number at 1.5 billion around the world by 2050. There's already 24 million or so being displaced annually, most internally within their own countries - most of these are rural people who move to cities but that's not likely going to be sustainable for very long. The way to stop them is to do something about climate change but...too late now I suppose. Apparently it's been cancelled to hear you people put it. My approval has nothing to do with anything.

tl/dr: They were enlightened to the FACTS FOS LIES never mentions. Yes, it's an AI presentation, but doesn't mean the script wasn't written by Lucas Bean.