All Activity

You're a total cultist dipshit of you look around right now thinking that Canada is better off now that we were in 2014. Can you name 1 way that things here got better?

So when I drive a boat thru an area that was once impassable due to how thick kelp grew there, you're saying the kelp is all still there but I've been indoctrinated to be oblivious to it? BTW, how did I get thru it? I did, I behaved just like Deluge. I'm pretty sure you think he's much better than me.

You've pooped your pants again because Harper was the best we had and you can't cope with it.

Maybe read chapter IV The Transmission of the Text in the book Final Authority, page 26. FinalAuthority AChristiansGuideToTheKJV GradyWP 1993.r-opts.pdf

I'm always correct It's not a long-term widespread problem in the slightest. Some developers, who have been making billions from the housing prices going up, got caught in a situation where the housing prices AREN'T shooting up right now and they stand to lose money because they misjudged the market. WHICH IS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. They make massive money when they guess right and take a hit when they don't. That's the reason we always hear for why the wealthy deserve their money: "Well they took all the risk they deserve the reward". But NOW Carney is stepping in for no good reason whatsoever and saying "Gosh guys, rather than have you dip into the billions you made in the past we'll have the taxpayers bail you out so you still make money! Taxpayers who probably could never have afforded to buy your places unless you dropped your prices!" That problem has existed for 5 minutes. This is a 100 percent Carney made thing. But of course you leap to his defense yet again It was only yesterday I did point to these things. And yet today here you are asking that I point to them again. And 5 minutes after I do you ask for it again. And then 10 minutes after that I just replied to one of your posts moments ago above where you are desperately trying to change the facts to defend carney again. "Oh it's not HIS fault that he's bailing out developers, many of whom are brooksfield subsidiaries, this is someone else's fault and is the result of decades of ... something something... "

Oddly enough conservatives think police are with them against Bill C-22 giving police more power. Sure.

1. Globalists want you to see what they tell you to see. Globalists also say we have until 2030. Talk about what happens in 2030. 2. No. I'm telling you that you've been indoctrinated by left-wing radicals. You see what they tell you to see.

If you were serious about wanting to know the answer about which manuscripts are the true manuscripts and which Bible is built on them, you would be willing to read something more than a few comments I make on here. You need to admit you don't accept anything I say. You say that is not correct, but I am skeptical. Anyway at least part of the book Final Authority by W. Grady is available to read online at this link. If you don't want to read the whole book, you could look at the index near the beginning and choose a chapter or two that aligns with the question of the manuscripts. I may try to post some information but that limits it to a small portion of the story. FinalAuthority AChristiansGuideToTheKJV GradyWP 1993.r-opts.pdf One problem is there is so much information in these books. To properly explain it would require posting a book of information.

Like I said, you are one of the worst people on this forum. If you are so concerned about behavior, start with yourself.

You're saying Ladyman is a member of the LGTBQIA+ Two Spirit, BiPoc community? Why are you following them so closely?

@WestCanMan isn't the one we're all laughing at big guy

"Anything I say you automatically reject." No. I've repeatedly asked you to support your conclusions. That's not the same thing as rejecting them. "Could be that Romanist spirit you have..." Whether I'm Catholic or not has nothing to do with whether a manuscript reading is original. That's a personal attack. Ironically, while accusing me of automatically rejecting your arguments, you're dismissing mine by attributing them to my presumed religion rather than addressing them.

Good Lord. For someone that is so smug, you sure do get it so wrong. The SCOTUS cannot rule on a law that is not written. BTW, I am not the one that said the ruling carried the weight of law, that was you. I pointed out that you were wrong on that issue. Don't talk to me like you are teaching me when you are just posting facts I told you. Plus, you missed a level. I won't tell you what it is, because you are just going to pretend you told me.

The problem with your "experts" is that they haven't produced a f*cking thing. All they do is point their fingers at humanity when a natural disaster strikes.

Globalists want me to see that millions of trees, thousands of whales, millions of sea stars and square miles of kelp forests have died or disappeared where I've live and worked for decades? Most of this is within the last ten years I might add. I'm telling you what I'm seeing with my own eyes. Are you suggesting I'm hallucinating? No you won't, you'll just run away and pout.

We have seen what happens to you, and it isn't good.

No it doesn't continue to another book. The truth is anything I say on here you automatically reject it as if you are pre-programmed to reject it. Could be that Romanist spirit you have, that automatically rejects anything not approved by the RC catechism or Rome. Would you admit that is the case?

He did a good job of pointing out of the LGTBQIA+ Two Spirit, BiPoc community is using Nazi symbology. That's why they are ok with voting for a known Nazi like Graham Platner.

"Obviously you are not going to be convinced by my posting a few sentences." I'm not asking to be convinced. I'm asking you to support the claims you're making. "You should do some reading yourself." I've read arguments from both sides. Telling me to read another book doesn't answer the questions I asked about the two textual variants you raised. "I can't quote the books on here." I'm not asking you to quote a book. I'm asking you to explain why you believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt. "I don't know if God has ordained you to know the answer." Whether God has ordained someone to salvation has nothing to do with whether a manuscript reading is original. That's a different discussion. "It helps to come with a humble spirit and study His Word." I agree. Humility also means being willing to support our claims when they're challenged. I've repeatedly asked for the textual evidence that these manuscripts are demonstrably corrupt. The answer continues to be another book, another website, or now an appeal to election, rather than the evidence itself.

I am not interested in your crying about someone else's behavior. You are one of the worst people on this forum. If/when you start caring about behavior, start with yourself, then I will jump in to defend you.

Hamas has systematically embedded underground infrastructure, weapons caches, and tunnel networks beneath and around civilian areas in Gaza, including multiple cemeteries. If you dispute this give us some evidence

You've explained why you believe the KJV reading is theologically stronger. You have not demonstrated that it is textually original. Those are different questions. "A vast number of manuscripts use the word God and only a few... have the word he." That's the Majority Text argument. It is not proof that the minority reading is corrupt. Critical Text scholars argue that an earlier reading preserved in fewer manuscripts can still be original if later scribes expanded or clarified the wording during transmission. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is the debate. "There was no excuse to change it." That assumes the conclusion. Critical Text scholars would say they didn't change the text. They believe they are restoring an earlier reading based on the manuscript evidence. You haven't demonstrated that their conclusion is wrong, only that you disagree with it. "This makes it far more difficult to convince a JW that Jesus is God." Whether a reading is more useful in defending a doctrine has no bearing on whether it is the original reading. Theological usefulness is not evidence of textual originality. "Acts 8:37... Modern versions leave this verse out." Again, you've explained why you believe the verse is doctrinally important. You have not demonstrated that Luke originally wrote it. Critical Text scholars omit it because they argue it was added later as a baptismal confession and is absent from many of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You may reject that conclusion, but that is a textual argument, not evidence of corruption. The discussion isn't whether these variants exist. The discussion is whether your preferred readings are demonstrably original and the alternative readings demonstrably corrupt. So far you've argued why you prefer the KJV readings, but you haven't demonstrated that the competing readings are corrupt rather than simply different conclusions reached through a different textual methodology. Obviously you are not going to be convinced by my posting a few sentences. You say you require proof that the Majority or Byzantine manuscripts are the true manuscripts rather than the co-called Critical text based on a few Alexandrian manuscripts. I won't waste a whole lot of time on a useless exercise trying to convince someone who doesn't listen or accept anything I say. So if you seriously want to know the answer to that question, you should do some reading yourself. As I said there are two good books that go into the source of the manuscripts. New Age Bible Versions by G. Riplinger and Final Authority by William Grady. Both are available as used books, often in near new condition from Thrift Books website. I can't quote the books on here although if I find a part in them I do quote them from time to time. If you want to know, you will have to make an effort yourself. I don't know if God has ordained you to know the answer. It is God's sovereign will for someone to know his truth and also God's sovereign choice to elect people to salvation. Read Romans chapter 9. Man cannot save himself. It is, a gift of God by grace through faith, not of works. Ephesians 2:8, 9 KJV. It helps to come with a humble spirit and study his Word.

Sure. You argued we avoid engaging ourselves and just fall back on experts. I took that to mean we don't use our own senses or knowledge, the way Deluge said he does. So when I did he immediately followed with personal attacks and denial. You just sat there and said nothing while he blatantly refuted everything you just said and effectively called you a liar.