Is there a Bible/ New Testament expert in the house?

[DMC]

Frank implies less than tactful (unreserved, you stupid clown--don't act like you didn't know what it meant and twisted it any way). Idiot.

frank ¹ (frngk)adj. frank·er, frank·est 1. Open and sincere in expression; straightforward:

I am in complete control. Every word has a purpose.

As we can all see.

We are done here. When you have a serious question feel free to ask. Otherwise, gfy.

We've been done for how many posts now?

[Skull-1]

That's not how the phrase goes. It's "ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel". Same as penny wise and pound foolish.

How do you physically/biologically strain before you eat something?

Swallow the bible to constipate the color of a robe. Or constipate the color of a robe and then swallow the scriptures. (There are other verses dealing with swallowing scripture...but too deep for your feeble mind.) This is why the scriptures are veiled.

Looking at it your way...

Block out a tiny gnat through a...strainer.....and then eat a camel....with all his fleas, etc. How filthy is that? (Do not heal a man's hand on the sabbath.)

INCONSISTENCY is what He is getting at here. The Pharises were good at that.

"My spouse cheated on me, so I will forget my family, vows, love, redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation, suffering for righteousness, etc. and twist porneia to suit my ends so I can marry someone else." Gnat. Camel. Camel. Gnat.

The robe was red. No. Purple.

Or he all the tiny leafy plants and miss the greater things.... The metaphor here....

Forget it......... The blind cannot see.

They strain out and dismiss the scriptures that are inconvenient to them. Or strain out the "gotcha" scriptures and use those against you.

[Skull-1]

frank ¹ (frngk)adj. frank·er, frank·est 1. Open and sincere in expression; straightforward:

Frank | Define Frank at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/frank?s=ts
adjective 1. direct and unreserved in speech

As in not holding back or being tactful. .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hubris my ass. I am right. You are wrong. That is just a fact.

All the rest is gnat straining. There are so many failsafes within scripture that a spiritual man can find the truth if God chooses Him. For idiots like you who can't even get kindergarten right (covenant of marriage) then of course cross checking is futile. You don't even know what words you are looking for.

Scripture is solid. It is you who is shaky.

As for ministry, I say what I say. Jesus was ignored, too, so I have no shame in being mocked by idiots like you and I know that few will listen. "That which has been is that which shall be."

I really love how you are comparing your treatment to that of Jesus. You seem to have issues submitting to the will of god. Your god according to you is yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am anything but untrustworthy. That slander/libel will cost you one day, mark my words.


Insecure? My confidence, accomplishments, and position crush that notion.


Unique was not a word I used regarding codexes, though, truth be told, they are all unique being essentially handwritten.

You can call it anything you wish. I certainly know more about this topic from any and every angle than you.

Scribes made errors but we--not you--can spot these pretty easily knowing what to look for. Go ask Dr. Leslie McFall for example. He is as good at it as anyone.

The scriptures are consistent, even with errors that are found in the TRANSLATIONS mostly (scribes erred in the copies, but again, these can be collated out, making the Byzantine Majority Text the best extant--and remarkably consistent...amazingly). It takes some effort to trace down the mistakes we see in the strays, but they are not a problem--and resolvable--at least every supposed inconsistency I have found so far.


Keep laughing, . It just proves the truth of prophecy. You exist only to show me I am on the right track, nothing more.

Again, there has been a whole lot of crazy that has gone on in the last two thousand years. I am very happy that you have some writings from Constantinople from some period but Constantinople was not even founded until the 3rd century. The events occurred within the Jews around Jerusalem and you have texts from Roman colonists on the Black Sea 300 or more years later.

There are all manner of ancient manuscripts that differ from the biblical account and not just the codified works that you chose or even better had someone else choose for you.

[DMC]

Frank | Define Frank at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/frank?s=ts
adjective 1. direct and unreserved in speech

As in not holding back or being tactful. .

forth·right

[adj., n. fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-; adv. fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-, fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-] Show IPA
adjective 1. going straight to the point; frank; direct; outspoken: It's sometimes difficult to be forthright and not give offense.

[Blake]

....and I am still blinded....

I figured your post about everyone being blind was irrelevant. Thanks for confirming.

[Blake]

Then what's the point? I say He exists. You say He doesn't. I use the foundation of scripture and some common sense (with science thrown in). You rely on a discipline you barely comprehend (and argue against a book you cannot understand). LMFAO. Speaking of not good at this..!!!

You are abjectly and absurdly ignorant so I would be careful with that self-righteous finger of yours. Get back to me when you have a serious question. Goodbye until then.

The OP question was serious. You dismissed it as no big deal. I think it is a big deal.

If you're too ignorant to really answer it, then why come into this thread at all

[I. Hustle]

What are your daughter's school colors? Crimson or purple?

[Blake]

LMFAO at the suggestion that abortion has advanced society. You would have looked good in a brown shirt.


(Also, Creationism is stupid. I say that as a follower of Christ. As for gay marriage, the "Christian" hypocrisy on this issue is laughable. Christians let straight people swap spouses like socks and call it <re>marriage under the guises of mercy, grace, and redemption when Christ and Paul called it ADULTERY. Tell those supposed Christians to fix heterosexual marriage before they start going off about what gay people are doing. It was Luther's erroneous contention that the church had to follow what the State allowed regarding marriage and the church went right along with it-- o irreconcilable differences! The only proper role of the government in "marriage" is record keeping. Again, fix the Adultery Within The Church. That is a far bigger crisis than gays wanting to "marry".)

Adultery isn't really an issue. That's something for you to gripe about at your local church.

[Skull-1]

Adultery isn't really an issue. That's something for you to gripe about at your local church.

Obviously you didn't read what adultery tuly means and results in, particularly for children. It isn't just "having an affair". It is much deeper than that. Go "study" your issues some more.

[Skull-1]

The OP question was serious. You dismissed it as no big deal. I think it is a big deal.

If you're too ignorant to really answer it, then why come into this thread at all

BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELEVANT. Was it a cloak or a robe? Was it purple or red? The implication is identical no matter how you mix it up. It was not a serious question at all and you dismiss the obvious answer.

[Skull-1]

forth·right

[adj., n. fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-; adv. fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-, fawrth-rahyt, fohrth-] Show IPA
adjective 1. going straight to the point; frank; direct; outspoken: It's sometimes difficult to be forthright and not give offense.

Frank | Define Frank at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/frank?s=ts
adjective 1. direct and unreserved in speech
I repeat, UNRESERVED IN SPEECH .

[Skull-1]

Again, there has been a whole lot of crazy that has gone on in the last two thousand years. I am very happy that you have some writings from Constantinople from some period but Constantinople was not even founded until the 3rd century. The events occurred within the Jews around Jerusalem and you have texts from Roman colonists on the Black Sea 300 or more years later.

There are all manner of ancient manuscripts that differ from the biblical account and not just the codified works that you chose or even better had someone else choose for you.

We have older manuscripts, but these are rife with errors. That's why the BMT is better because even comparing it to the oldest texts extant they are more accurate. The scriptures are consistent. They came out by accident to just the right number as referenced. I doubt anything that "differs" as you say would change the truth of scripture an iota. It would just be more gnats for you to strain. Nothing more.

Age is also not to ever be confused with accuracy, no matter what the manuscript. Start here and work your way out. (Quoted without permission.)
---
"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

...(T)here is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
---
Older is not better.

I won't even bother to go into detail how screwed up MS69 is (which is one of Erasmus' sources for the Textus Receptus and eventually the KJV).

"A 15th Century manuscript, MS 69 was not very old (it is dated between 1465-1472) at the time of Erasmus and the margin corrections pre-dated the first edition of his Greek New Testament in 1516. It is also riddled with errors. According to F. H. A. Scrivener's, An Exact Transcription of Codex Augienses (1859) there are 74 omissions of various sorts along with numerous interrupted words."

Dr. Leslie McFall has a nice website also and explains this stuff a lot better than I can. Not that you care.

[Skull-1]

What are your daughter's school colors? Crimson or purple?

[Blake]

Obviously you didn't read what adultery tuly means and results in, particularly for children. It isn't just "having an affair". It is much deeper than that. Go "study" your issues some more.

Neh. There is no persecution against adulterers, and I'd think we'd agree there should be no law against adultery, so it's relevant only to you.

[Blake]

What are your daughter's school colors? Crimson or purple?

Neither.

Great question.

[Blake]

BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELEVANT. Was it a cloak or a robe? Was it purple or red? The implication is identical no matter how you mix it up. It was not a serious question at all and you dismiss the obvious answer.

It's relevant because the New Testament is supposed to be flawless.

Why believe in a flawed story that was ripped off from zoroastrianism?

[Skull-1]

Neh. There is no persecution against adulterers, and I'd think we'd agree there should be no law against adultery, so it's relevant only to you.

And it is destroying families along with society. You're not very bright and never without an inane retort.

[Skull-1]

It's relevant because the New Testament is supposed to be flawless.

Why believe in a flawed story that was ripped off from zoroastrianism?

It is flawless. The spiritual principle remains unchanged regardless of the color or type of cloak. These are the gnats that cause the clueless to justify rejecting the truth, just the way God intended.

I am tired of explaining this to you over and over and over. I am done.

EDIT IN: My eyes do not see colors identically. The simple fact is that one person can see a hue differently than another. This explanation is NOT necessary because the scriptural principle being conveyed doesn't care if it is purple or red. I have seen a GREEN airplane look blue from one angle and in certain cloud or sun conditions. Blue can look purple. Red can seem orange, so can tan. IT STILL DOES NOT MATTER.


A friend of mine was kind enough to compile a little something and I thought I would share it for the openminded (that means Blake and Lumnuts aren't included in my target audience--feeble minds cannot grasp even the most basic premise so I am done dealing with them).

---------------

"Cloak or robe?

"Does it even matter?

"I say no because the implication is the same."

Right it doesn't matter but there are all sorts of logical explanations for the "differing" colors and I don't have time or desire to read them all but here are a few they can suck on:

What it boils down to is the common issue with English translations being inadequate because the Greek words can have a much broader meaning. The same Greek word translated purple can also mean any shade from violet to crimson, or any color between blue and red.

The word kokkinos, in the Greek, is the PRIMARY COLOR OF RED.

http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

PORPHYRA is not exactly purple. It's purple-red.

Tyrian purple (Greek, πορφύρα, porphyra, Latin: purpura), also known as royal purple, imperial purple or imperial dye, is a purple-red natural dye, which is extracted from sea snails, and which was possibly first produced by the ancient Phoenicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

So, basically, it's as if you, for example, were describing a car as being red; and another person, describing the same car, decided to be more specific, and described the same car, as burgundy. Here is what comes up when you do a search to see what color porphyra is:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/B95D7B/Porphyra

Matthew's scarlet is the Greek word κοκκινην (Strong's G2847 "kokkinos"); it means scarlet, just like the English text says. But it's the purple that's the clear identifier: John's purple πορφυρουν (Strong's G4210 "porphurous") is derived from the word Mark uses for purple πορφυραν (Strong's G4209 "porphura") which doesn't just mean any old purple, it means the purple associated with the murex. Murex is a "purple" s fish, although the dye can come out from a bright blue to a scarlet.

So "Purple" meant it came from the "purple" dye, but it's color was scarlet. That same "purple" fish also made bright (near cobalt blue) color for the phylacteries of that age.

The blue, purple and scarlet were woven together for the priestly robes (Exodus 39:1), among other things in the tabernacle. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...n=1&spanend=73
-------------

So there you go. Scripture is inerrant. It is the translators and the interpretations that are in error. God does this on purpose to veil the truth for His reasons.

Again, it does not matter. The spiritual principle, the point being made, doesn't care if it is red or purple. He was being mocked and denigrated. He was being called a king in a demeaning fashion. There is more to it than this but I will leave it there. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT COLOR IT IS, THE IMPLICATION IS IDENTICAL EVEN WITHOUT THE NUMEROUS PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE MINOR DIFFERENCE. There are far larger gnats one can choose to strain before this one, I assure you (I have addressed a few of these in the other thread).

I don't give a rat's ass about pre- or post-Constantinople or any other stupid excuses that people come up with. The Gospel, the TRUE one, not the one preached at the bogus synagogue of satan down the street from your house that corrupts the truth of God and turns it into a lie. That all of this stuff lines up and correlates so well is indeed miraculous. But the blind will never see that. Frankly I don't care. My spiritual eyes see very clearly and I am blessed to have the clarity.

[Blake]

And it is destroying families along with society. You're not very bright and never without an inane retort.

Prove that adultery is destroying society. Then propose how we stop it.

[Blake]

It is flawless.

No it's not. That's the point.

you're picking and choosing which details to listen to and which to ignore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We have older manuscripts, but these are rife with errors. That's why the BMT is better because even comparing it to the oldest texts extant they are more accurate. The scriptures are consistent. They came out by accident to just the right number as referenced. I doubt anything that "differs" as you say would change the truth of scripture an iota. It would just be more gnats for you to strain. Nothing more.

Age is also not to ever be confused with accuracy, no matter what the manuscript. Start here and work your way out. (Quoted without permission.)
---
"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

...(T)here is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
---
Older is not better.

I won't even bother to go into detail how screwed up MS69 is (which is one of Erasmus' sources for the Textus Receptus and eventually the KJV).

"A 15th Century manuscript, MS 69 was not very old (it is dated between 1465-1472) at the time of Erasmus and the margin corrections pre-dated the first edition of his Greek New Testament in 1516. It is also riddled with errors. According to F. H. A. Scrivener's, An Exact Transcription of Codex Augienses (1859) there are 74 omissions of various sorts along with numerous interrupted words."

Dr. Leslie McFall has a nice website also and explains this stuff a lot better than I can. Not that you care.

You are ignorant of the history of the early church. They are consistent post Constantinople because of councils that pick and chose which text to go by. What you refuse to -or are emotionally incapable-- acknowledge is the treatment of the Gnostic and Arian sects or those that revered Mary as a chosen of God and god knows who else. Sure the various bishops of various Mediterranean city states came up with the current incarnation but the rooted out dissent with torch and sword, more than 300 years after the events in question. But hey you have your canned 'codex.'

You now think its valid because they have been diligent in replication since that time. As I said you are incredibly naive.

[silverblk mystix]

I figured your post about everyone being blind was irrelevant. Thanks for confirming.

No surprise here. You really didn't want to change anything. You really don't want to get out of your self-imposed prison.

[Blake]

No surprise here. You really didn't want to change anything. You really don't want to get out of your self-imposed prison.

Absolutely I do.
Just because I don't want to change it your way doesn't mean I don't want to change it.

Just stay on the sidelines, blind man.