Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I don't understand the lefty obsession with what people do in their own bedrooms.
I personally don't even want to know that leftists KNOW about sex, let alone have to think about them having it. I'd be mightily obliged if they'd shut up about their sex lives.
And yet your avatar is all about sexuality.
What a hypocrite.
Do you know that story where Jesus says "He who is without sin..."?
It doesn't exist in the earliest extant manuscripts, either partial or complete. It was added later.
I'm fairly sure that you would agree that the oldest manuscripts are probably closest to the originals. Why do you think someone added to the text?
No originals exist, only copies.
How do we know that? Would we recognize an original if we had it? How wouldd it differ from a copy?
By dating the ages of the copies. They far post-date when the originals would have been penned.
How do we know that? Would we recognize an original if we had it? How wouldd it differ from a copy?
By dating the ages of the copies. They far post-date when the originals would have been penned.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
According to liberals, every one in all of history was gay. It's how they justify themselves.
By dating the ages of the copies. They far post-date when the originals would have been penned.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
According to liberals, every one in all of history was gay. It's how they justify themselves.
Amen! And hallelujah!
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
But there aren't any dated that are as old as the originals, so your question is moot.
Do you understand this?
How can so many historians be wrong!
...How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. "The king leans on his [Carr's] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others." (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611)
James's sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying "King Elizabeth" had been succeeded by "Queen James."
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
Interesting...
Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was "newly translated out of the original tongues," the work was actually a revision of The Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous English translators, but invented some of their own.Another little known fact: After King Jame's death, the Bible named after him was changed to specifically include homosexuality as a sin, although earlier bibles, dating back to ancient times, didn't.A physical weakling, as an adolescent James had shown himself to be a coward, who liked only to hunt, to read (which he did, prodigiously) and to talk. To protect himself he wore thick quilted doublets, so padded that they provided a kind of armor against any assassin who might attack him with a knife. When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his cousin Esmé Stewart and elevating him to a position of authority on the royal council, some of his nobles kidnapped James and held him captive, banishing Stewart and controlling James's every move. After nearly a year James escaped, but continued to resent his jailers; after he began to rule on his own behalf, at seventeen, he made it a priority to bring the turbulent Scots nobles under control.
As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers "sweet child and wife" and referred to himself as "your dear dad and husband." But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
But there aren't any dated that are as old as the originals, so your question is moot.
Do you understand this?
How do you know if you never saw the original?
How do we know that? Would we recognize an original if we had it? How wouldd it differ from a copy?
By dating the ages of the copies. They far post-date when the originals would have been penned.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
That doesn't really address the problem. All it says is when that particular original or copy was penned. It doesnt tell us if it is an original or copy.
If i made two copies of something I wrote, one immediate after the original and one 10 years later, you would be able to tell that one was 10 years early, but you couldn't tell if it was the original or a copy.
Hence my point. There is no way to know a manuscript that old is a copy or the original. It's not like they stamped "Original" on the manucripts.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
Don't make so much sense. You might confuse the easily confused.
Of course there is!
If you know that the copy dates from 356 AD. and you know that the original dates from 60 AD, you know the one in your hands is a copy.
Is that really that hard a concept?
Have I really lost you here?
I can't imagine I really have.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
Don't make so much sense. You might confuse the easily confused.
you dont seem to get it. If you have a manucript dating 60AD and you know it was written in 60AD there is no way to tell if its a copy or the original.
Don't make so much sense. You might confuse the easily confused.
THERE ARE NO MANUSCRIPTS DATING TO 60AD!
Can't you follow this?
Seriously?
But there aren't any dated that are as old as the originals, so your question is moot.
Do you understand this?
How do you know if you never saw the original?
Are you this ignorant about the history of scripture and the dates ascribed to each of the books within it? When they were written?
Really?
Honestly?
Avatar stopped this line of questioning because it had become an embarrassing mistake.
How long will it take for you to understand you are making a complete fool of yourself?
Don't make so much sense. You might confuse the easily confused.
THERE ARE NO MANUSCRIPTS DATING TO 60AD!
Can't you follow this?
Seriously?
I think they can be dated to 40 A.D. or earlier.
