King james was gay!

[Chuckt]

But the manuscripts we have of the Gospel of Mark exhibit inconsistencies with each other. They don't meet a standard as high as you describe. Many of these are insignificant, to be sure, but scribal errors are thoroughly documented.
The verse that calls all scripture God-breathed refers solely to the OT, as the NT didn't yet exist.
I don't accept that any of it is God-breathed however, but just the documentation of how a given people at a given time wrestled with the idea of a god.

Correlation does not prove causation. Not everyone could afford schooling so if there are spelling errors in some of the copies you don't make my logic leap from spelling errors to "they changed the text".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmXqL8-9dqk]JOHN TRAVOLTA SAYS IDINA MENZEL @ THE OSCARS 2014! - YouTube[/ame]

Anybody can make mistakes and the fact that Vaticanus sat on the shelf for a thousand years and is in such good condition is because no one used it because everyone knew that the scribe made a mistake.

So what is your theory for why the Jesus story where he says "He who is without sin...." doesn't appear in any of the oldest manuscripts extant?
This story was a later addition to scripture that SOMEONE added.
Was that just a "mistake"? Did someone misplace it and then just found it hanging around and re-inserted it?

Like I said. They put some manuscripts aside when they made mistakes. That would account for why it wasn't included.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Correlation does not prove causation. Not everyone could afford schooling so if there are spelling errors in some of the copies you don't make my logic leap from spelling errors to "they changed the text".

JOHN TRAVOLTA SAYS IDINA MENZEL @ THE OSCARS 2014! - YouTube

Anybody can make mistakes and the fact that Vaticanus sat on the shelf for a thousand years and is in such good condition is because no one used it because everyone knew that the scribe made a mistake.

So what is your theory for why the Jesus story where he says "He who is without sin...." doesn't appear in any of the oldest manuscripts extant?
This story was a later addition to scripture that SOMEONE added.
Was that just a "mistake"? Did someone misplace it and then just found it hanging around and re-inserted it?

Like I said. They put some manuscripts aside when they made mistakes. That would account for why it wasn't included.

These are the oldest manuscripts we have, closest in time to whatever the originals might have said.
On what basis do you set them aside for a later, altered version?

 

[Chuckt]

So what is your theory for why the Jesus story where he says "He who is without sin...." doesn't appear in any of the oldest manuscripts extant?
This story was a later addition to scripture that SOMEONE added.
Was that just a "mistake"? Did someone misplace it and then just found it hanging around and re-inserted it?

Like I said. They put some manuscripts aside when they made mistakes. That would account for why it wasn't included.

These are the oldest manuscripts we have, closest in time to whatever the originals might have said.
On what basis do you set them aside for a later, altered version?

You don't understand. There were four manuscript families that were in four different geographic regions of the world that no one person or group had control over. So when your Bible says Revelation 5:9 doesn't have "us" in the best manuscripts, what they fail to tell you that 24 out of 25 manuscripts do have "us". So if anything was changed, I would suspect the single manuscript that had a change because different geographical groups wouldn't have gotten together on changing the Bible.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Like I said. They put some manuscripts aside when they made mistakes. That would account for why it wasn't included.

These are the oldest manuscripts we have, closest in time to whatever the originals might have said.
On what basis do you set them aside for a later, altered version?

You don't understand. There were four manuscript families that were in four different geographic regions of the world that no one person or group had control over. So when your Bible says Revelation 5:9 doesn't have "us" in the best manuscripts, what they fail to tell you that 24 out of 25 manuscripts do have "us". So if anything was changed, I would suspect the single manuscript that had a change because different geographical groups wouldn't have gotten together on changing the Bible.

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Apparently there is no proof one way or the other that King James was gay. What we do know is that he had no less than 7 children and that he advanced laws against sodomy.

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

The evidence is conclusive that he could have intercourse with human and was drawn emotionally and sexually to men as well. A logical premise would be that he had sex with men, too.

None of which has anything to do with the worth of the King James Bible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Apparently there is no proof one way or the other that King James was gay. What we do know is that he had no less than 7 children and that he advanced laws against sodomy.

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_03.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Lady, I hate to point this out but

1)There are married gay men with kids. King James could be one of them.

2)The fact he passed anti-sodomy laws may have more to do with politics and image of the throne than his own wishes. Machiavalli "The Prince" is much better able to explain the philosophy of politics during this era than I am.

Even so, it is possible that stories of King James Homosexual tendencies may be due to his political enemies. Hey, its tough being King. Tougher if you really want to be queen!

He also wrote to his son not to be effeminate, and to be faithful to his wife. And he wrote many love letters to his own wife. The fact is, long after his death, an enemy of King James made the claim that he was a homosexual and you bought it, hook line and sinker. No investigation necessary.

Contemporary writings testify to his varied sexuality, none of which has anything to do with the validity of the KJ Bible.

 

[Chuckt]

These are the oldest manuscripts we have, closest in time to whatever the originals might have said.
On what basis do you set them aside for a later, altered version?

You don't understand. There were four manuscript families that were in four different geographic regions of the world that no one person or group had control over. So when your Bible says Revelation 5:9 doesn't have "us" in the best manuscripts, what they fail to tell you that 24 out of 25 manuscripts do have "us". So if anything was changed, I would suspect the single manuscript that had a change because different geographical groups wouldn't have gotten together on changing the Bible.

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You don't understand. There were four manuscript families that were in four different geographic regions of the world that no one person or group had control over. So when your Bible says Revelation 5:9 doesn't have "us" in the best manuscripts, what they fail to tell you that 24 out of 25 manuscripts do have "us". So if anything was changed, I would suspect the single manuscript that had a change because different geographical groups wouldn't have gotten together on changing the Bible.

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

You clearly don't understand this topic at all. That example is completely ridiculous, and you can't understand how it is a logically unsound response.
It is very difficult to discuss things with people that simply aren't very bright. You have to start from so far back.
If you have two bibles side by side, and they are different, has a change occurred?
Tell me your answer is "no".

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't understand. There were four manuscript families that were in four different geographic regions of the world that no one person or group had control over. So when your Bible says Revelation 5:9 doesn't have "us" in the best manuscripts, what they fail to tell you that 24 out of 25 manuscripts do have "us". So if anything was changed, I would suspect the single manuscript that had a change because different geographical groups wouldn't have gotten together on changing the Bible.

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

 

[Chuckt]

Do you think avoiding my question will make it go away?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include this story.

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

How do you know what the original is if you never saw an original?

The disciples of the apostles would have known would have sought to preserve the original and since all the other manuscript families don't copy the mistake means that the earliest alleged manuscript wasn't the focal point.

 

[thebrucebeat]

My original Bible which I was given wore out. Does that mean that the Bible has changed since then? Lol.

Your objection to my answer is your avoidance.

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

How do you know what the original is if you never saw an original?

The disciples of the apostles would have known would have sought to preserve the original and since all the other manuscript families don't copy the mistake means that the earliest alleged manuscript wasn't the focal point.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ANYTHING TO THE NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earliest manuscripts we still have, closest in time to the originals we don't have, do not include this story. It was added later.
NOT PRESERVED! ADDED!
This is what I'm talking about. You think poorly. Your logic skills are so impaired it becomes an exercise in absurdity talking to you.

 

[Chuckt]

ChuckT, why are you ignoring the positive fact that the earliest manuscripts don't have story.

How do you know what the original is if you never saw an original?

The disciples of the apostles would have known would have sought to preserve the original and since all the other manuscript families don't copy the mistake means that the earliest alleged manuscript wasn't the focal point.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ANYTHING TO THE NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earliest manuscripts we still have, closest in time to the originals we don't have, do not include this story. It was added later.
NOT PRESERVED! ADDED!
This is what I'm talking about. You think poorly. Your logic skills are so impaired it becomes an exercise in absurdity talking to you.

Your position is an assumption.

 

[thebrucebeat]

How do you know what the original is if you never saw an original?

The disciples of the apostles would have known would have sought to preserve the original and since all the other manuscript families don't copy the mistake means that the earliest alleged manuscript wasn't the focal point.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ANYTHING TO THE NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earliest manuscripts we still have, closest in time to the originals we don't have, do not include this story. It was added later.
NOT PRESERVED! ADDED!
This is what I'm talking about. You think poorly. Your logic skills are so impaired it becomes an exercise in absurdity talking to you.

Your position is an assumption.

The assumption is the story wasn't there before, and then it miraculously appeared.
Except it isn't an assumption.
It's data.
It is also based on data that your thinking skills are impaired.

 

[Chuckt]

NO ONE IS COMPARING ANYTHING TO THE NON-EXISTENT ORIGINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earliest manuscripts we still have, closest in time to the originals we don't have, do not include this story. It was added later.
NOT PRESERVED! ADDED!
This is what I'm talking about. You think poorly. Your logic skills are so impaired it becomes an exercise in absurdity talking to you.

Your position is an assumption.

The assumption is the story wasn't there before, and then it miraculously appeared.
Except it isn't an assumption.
It's data.
It is also based on data that your thinking skills are impaired.

Faulty data. One of the earliest manuscripts was found in a trash dump. It means it didn't belong to the church.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Your position is an assumption.

The assumption is the story wasn't there before, and then it miraculously appeared.
Except it isn't an assumption.
It's data.
It is also based on data that your thinking skills are impaired.

Faulty data. One of the earliest manuscripts was found in a trash dump. It means it didn't belong to the church.

None of the earliest ones belonged to the church. Where do you think the church got the copies they copied from?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include the story. If one was found in a trash dump, that doesn't tell you who owned it before or how it got there. It doesn't address all the others that leave this story out.
Think before you post. These arguments are humiliating, and you should be able to think your way through to how they make you look very, very bad.

 

[amrchaos]

Question

Why are the original manuscripts so important?

Is it possible that copies of the original existed and those were used instead?

 

[Chuckt]

The assumption is the story wasn't there before, and then it miraculously appeared.
Except it isn't an assumption.
It's data.
It is also based on data that your thinking skills are impaired.

Faulty data. One of the earliest manuscripts was found in a trash dump. It means it didn't belong to the church.

None of the earliest ones belonged to the church. Where do you think the church got the copies they copied from?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include the story. If one was found in a trash dump, that doesn't tell you who owned it before or how it got there. It doesn't address all the others that leave this story out.
Think before you post. These arguments are humiliating, and you should be able to think your way through to how they make you look very, very bad.

Are you "aware of Dr. Burgon's extensive work on the Early Church Fathers? (The Traditional Text, New York: Cosimo, 118-122). And how Dr. Burgon shows that the majority of quotes used by the Early Church Fathers were Byzantine in nature?"

We have the correct manuscript family in the KJ. END of story.

 

[Nutz]

It's a shame when you have to attack to justify your behavior. Might I ask, if King James was gay, what does the gay left gain? What does the gay left gain by attacking Christianity and people of faith?

Do you people really believe that only Christians oppose poor lifestyle choices?

Not one from the gay left even attempted to answer my questions.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Question

Why are the original manuscripts so important?

Is it possible that copies of the original existed and those were used instead?

Only because the inerrantists want to make the case of the perfection of the bible, and we have no way of knowing if this is the case.
Presumably, the copies were first made from an original, but how many were made before we got what we finally have in our hands?
Details, details.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Faulty data. One of the earliest manuscripts was found in a trash dump. It means it didn't belong to the church.

None of the earliest ones belonged to the church. Where do you think the church got the copies they copied from?
NONE of the earliest manuscripts include the story. If one was found in a trash dump, that doesn't tell you who owned it before or how it got there. It doesn't address all the others that leave this story out.
Think before you post. These arguments are humiliating, and you should be able to think your way through to how they make you look very, very bad.

Are you "aware of Dr. Burgon's extensive work on the Early Church Fathers? (The Traditional Text, New York: Cosimo, 118-122). And how Dr. Burgon shows that the majority of quotes used by the Early Church Fathers were Byzantine in nature?"

We have the correct manuscript family in the KJ. END of story.

You have never studied how the KJV came to be or where the translation comes from, or you wouldn't be saying this.
Whenever you see "End of story" in an argument, you can be pretty certain, almost 100% of the time, that the person has run out of ways to support their argument.