Recent content by GentleGospeller

It is not "Ludicrous" in the least, as I have shown you the evidences, several times. Jesus spoke of false prophets in those two locations, and those two mss are in those exact locations, and in locations which the Bible does not look upon favourably (areas around Egypt and Rome). When did you...

Then, as you have said, B. Metzger, is denying the actual scientific evidence, in favour of his own biases. - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? Again, Metzger, without any evidence, simply says of his own accord, "the earliest and best uncials (Αleph,..."...

Do you know why the NIV does that? It is because it follows several corrupt mss, such as Codex B and Aleph, as my citations and evidences show - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? The NIV also has Jesuit (Catholic) influences - The NIV Bible and Jesuit Priest The Catholic Connection | Paw Creek Ministries...

Ooops, that is the logical fallacy of 'ad majorem', 'ad populum' in the least. The amount of persons that adhere to an ideology in no way is logical evidence of the factualness of that ideology, otherwise 'catholicism' would be true, wouldn't it? But you and I know it ain't. At least I hope...

You are going to quote from some random guy's facebook page (Dominick Kortokrax's, of the TR academy)? You are claiming this is an authoritative 'scholar'? The guy is not citing any official 'scholar'. He is just posting (on facebook, no less) is own personal biases. Additionally, Dean...

I see that you dislike "Burgon", but I also see that you simply caluminated him, rather than provided any evidence that his written materials on the mss under discussion were incorrect. I did not see you refute a single page, paragraph, or sentence of his written material. Also, who said that...

You have accused me of doing something which I have not done in any of my replies. This is simply you, again, arguing against your imaginary version of 'me', which is just 'you' again. I do desire you come to speak with me, rather than just 'you', but it is your prerogative, if you so choose...

Who said anything about "unitarianism"? Not I. I am dealing with the old 'arian' (Ecc. 1:9, 3:15) error. Your "imagination" does run a bit all over the place to be sure: Imagining yourself to be "persecuted", Imagining I have said things I did not, &c. Come back to the scriptures please...

The fallen flesh (Rom. 8:3) of Christ Jesus was "made" (Gal. 4:4), but "flesh" and "spirit" (mind / heart) are two differing things as just shown to you. Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Joh_3:6 That which is born...

This was already agreed to, already accepted, already admitted, already granted, and never, not even once) questioned by my position. You are simply agreeing with my position. This is no evidence against my position. Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the...

You are claiming you are being "persecuted", by 'me'? What is your evidence of this? I saw none provided. You are simply claiming a status which does not rightfully belong to you. No one is persecuting you. What is happening, is that your ideology is being shown to be of, and originating...

You seem to be making a point about Majuscule (all CAPS), and miniscule (all lowercasing) mss, as opposed to the English translations, which were shown to you: John 1:1 in many modern English translations - John 1:1 - Bible Gateway ".. . KJ21 ... was God. ASV ... was God. AMP ... was God...

Perhaps this is the issue. Most people cannot see the nose on their face, unless others hold up a mirror to them. If they try to look on their own, they might see faint glimpses of an outline of a nose on their face, just in front of them, but might not believe it exists, even though they are...

"The best scholars" says who? This is a fallacious logic and quite subjective. You provided no foundational reasoning to what is "best", nor provided the evidence that such "scholars" (as you propose, but not provide) give to support their claims, should such claims be produced. you didn't...

Again, this is you citing 'you'. You did not cite anyone authoritative, while I, in response, have done so. I provided numerous references, both modern and historical. Simply saying that my reply is "gibberish" without evidence to that effect, is simply 'hand-waving'. It is evidence that...