The Science of Disinformation

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:53 pm

joe 90 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:45 pm
Can you prove that he wasn't?
Can you prove he was? Study your bible and you will learn some neat stuff!

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by joe 90 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:56 pm

Which version of the bible?

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:28 pm

joe 90 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:56 pm
Which version of the bible?
There are only 2 and the correct one leads to the King James if you speak English, if not you can find it in what ever language you need.

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by joe 90 » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:15 pm

The old testament was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek.
The new testament was written in Greek.
The Eastern orthodox church still uses the Greek version.

It was translated into Latin to be used by the "holy Roman Empire".
Then it was translated into English.
If you don't speak English, there's a few other translations too, one for every language (even one for "Cook Island Maori").

Then there was the new translation done in the 1960s which was direct from the originals to English.
Add to that a few crazy factions which have their own versions.......Like the JWs and the Mormons.


One thing they all have in common, like computer simulations for engines........they're all different so they're ALL wrong.

exhaustgases
Expert
Expert
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:36 pm

dirtracr5 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:17 pm
Saw this today...don't shoot the messenger!

Image
Funny stuff. So what is the most predominate skin color? And this is not a racist deal, its a simple logic deal.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:22 pm

joe 90 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:15 pm
The old testament was written in Hebrew and translated to Greek.
The new testament was written in Greek.
The Eastern orthodox church still uses the Greek version.

It was translated into Latin to be used by the "holy Roman Empire".
Then it was translated into English.
If you don't speak English, there's a few other translations too, one for every language (even one for "Cook Island Maori").

Then there was the new translation done in the 1960s which was direct from the originals to English.
Add to that a few crazy factions which have their own versions.......Like the JWs and the Mormons.


One thing they all have in common, like computer simulations for engines........they're all different so they're ALL wrong.
Really, if you mean new KJ? That is not the original KJ!
Believe what you want!
I have a KJ from the 50's and a recent print that are identical, you can compare them as far back as exist and you will find very little difference other than some spelling.

Like I said it is better to study before you think!
Last edited by GARY C on Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by joe 90 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:40 am

Here.......

Nothing to do with King Jimmy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Bible

For a bible basher you don't seem to know a lot about bibles?

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:20 am

joe 90 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:40 am
Here.......

Nothing to do with King Jimmy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Bible

For a bible basher you don't seem to know a lot about bibles?
What does the New English Bible have to do with the original bible.
"Near the time when the copyright to the English Revised Version was due to expire (1935), the Oxford University Press and the Cambridge University Press, who were the current English Revised Version copyright holders, began investigations to determine whether a modern revision of the English Revised Version text was necessary."

You probably want get what this means but the original King James was put out to be used by anyone and did not have a copy right because profit was not the purpose.

You should read past the first paragraph as well as click the links and study the whole subject, preferably beyond Wikipedia!
New Testament before 70 AD.[4] Others give a final date of 80 AD,[5] or at 96 AD.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
The Old Testament consists of many distinct books by various authors[4] produced over a period of centuries. In the most accepted hypothesis, the canon formed in stages, first the Pentateuch by around 400 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I stuck with their conservative numbers so you will be happy!

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:28 am

A brief discription if you want an idea of why I say there are only 2 bibles!

If we trace the manuscripts back to their origins, there are only two sources for them - Antioch and Alexandria. Text types that represent a time period or location are traceable back to one of two families of manuscripts - the Majority text and the Minority text - the Majority text originating in Antioch, Syria and the Minority text originating in Alexandria, Egypt.



The Majority text (literally) includes approximately 99% of the 5,000+ extant manuscripts (meaning manuscripts that are in existence today). These manuscripts include the ones used by the King James Bible translators and they have a high level of agreement with each other. The Minority text (literally) includes the remaining less than 1% of extant manuscripts. These manuscripts include those used by all modern versions and they have a high level of disagreement between each other (For example, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the two principal Alexandrian manuscripts by far, disagree with each other in over 3,000 places in the four gospels alone - see chart below).
http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/ ... ndria.html

Here is a good simple source if you want to get into the history!
http://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible ... dale-Bible

Circlotron
Expert
Expert
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:56 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by Circlotron » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:25 am

joe 90 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:56 pm
I thought jesus was black?
Judas identified Jesus to the Roman soldiers that came to arrest him. If he was black that would not have been necessary because he would have stood out like a sore thumb amongst olive skinned Jewish people. Also proves he didn't have a halo.

joe 90
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:02 am
Location: The land of the long white cloud

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by joe 90 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:41 am

I thought that Jews looked just the same as Arab terrorists?

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5648
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by David Redszus » Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:51 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:36 pm
dirtracr5 wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:17 pm
Saw this today...don't shoot the messenger!

Image
Funny stuff. So what is the most predominate skin color? And this is not a racist deal, its a simple logic deal.
Let's think about this a little.

According to the Old Testament, just who actually crucified Jesus?
Was it the white man? People of color?

No, it was the Jews who had him done in; he was killed by his own people.

Seems we just can't get over tripping on our racist dickks.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by GARY C » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:49 pm

Just curious, where in the Old Testament does it tell you who crucified Jesus?

I don't remember the Romans stopping it, and when pilot gave the people a choice of releasing Jesus or Barabbas it was probably a mixed crowed and they didn't choose Jesus.

What did Jesus say hanging on the cross? Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do!

If you ever choose to read your bible you will see that Jesus was not killed, He died for the sins of the world and He really wasn't worried because it was only for 3 days.

Actually it was the sin of mankind that cause Jesus to be crucified.

David are you saying there were no white or black jews, that seems a bit racist and why does skin color matter outside of Dawins belief?

What color were jews in that day? Transparent? Everyone is a person of color!

I am guessing the Ethiopian jew would disagree with you.
Image

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:02 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:26 pm

I defy you to prove the theory of creationism. And please don't use some ones observations as proof of anything.

Or prove creationism without once referring to the scientific theory of evolution, pretend it doesnt exist. Because all the 'proof' you provide is a misrepresentation of evolution, surely creationism can stand on its own.

Furthermore, which of the numerous gods is the creator?

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Science of Disinformation

Post by paulzig » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:08 pm

Circlotron wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:11 am
paulzig wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:49 pm
Creation says 'We know from James Usshers literal reading of the bible and his chronology that the earth is 6000yrs old,
I think his chronology was attempting to ascertain how long humans had been on the earth based on X was Y years old, then he became father to Z, etc. The Bible does not contain any basis for disagreeing with the estimated age of the earth at 4.3 billion years.
paulzig wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:49 pm
Age of the earth doesnt have anything to do with the age of the earth,
Hmmm...
Yeah I dont know what happened to that last paragraph, double typed or something... I think I was going to write, age of the earth has nothing to do with the Ussher chronology.

Post Reply