Re: How to destroy a usenet newsgroup

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
message

> Ten years ago, rec.audio.opinion was not the wreck it is
> today. There were many active participants representing
> all areas of interest, ranging from aesthetes to
> engineers. But there was a hidden enemy of this beautiful
> social scene. He used aliases to set people against each
> other, and even sent email viruses timed to make it look
> as if one participant had done it to another. He was a
> human hagfish, eating the group from the inside out.
> Practically no one noticed, because good people aren't
> quick to discover when Absolute Evil has arrived in their
> midst. And he had an interesting tactic: generate enough
> disguises and enough lies, and the average Good Person
> simply won't punch through the cloud.

Sounds about right. One of his public faces is the Middiot.

> Our American-dominated group, rec.audio.opinion, has been
> taken over by the Cult of the Lie, by grown-up children
> who have the ethics of children. I could count on the
> fingers of one hand the members who do not lie, and the
> total participation on the fingers of both hands. It is a
> wasteland for the soul.

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
consider.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 17, 5:23�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in
> t
>
> > Ten years ago, rec.audio.opinion was not the wreck it is
> > today. There were many active participants representing
> > all areas of interest, ranging from aesthetes to
> > engineers. But there was a hidden enemy of this beautiful
> > social scene. He used aliases to set people against each
> > other, and even sent email viruses timed to make it look
> > as if one participant had done it to another. He was a
> > human hagfish, eating the group from the inside out.
> > Practically no one noticed, because good people aren't
> > quick to discover when Absolute Evil has arrived in their
> > midst. And he had an interesting tactic: generate enough
> > disguises and enough lies, and the average Good Person
> > simply won't punch through the cloud.
>
> Sounds about right. One of his public faces is the Middiot.

Are you saying that George and Bwian are the same person?

>
> > Our American-dominated group, rec.audio.opinion, has been
> > taken over by the Cult of the Lie, by grown-up children
> > who have the ethics of children. I could count on the
> > fingers of one hand the members who do not lie, and the
> > total participation on the fingers of both hands. It is a
> > wasteland for the soul.
>
> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
> the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
> consider.

Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet newsgroups when you
start your own company. Conversely, that may explain why pcabx.com no
longer exists.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message


> Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
> newsgroups when you start your own company.

When did that happen?

> Conversely,
> that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.

Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no need to continue to
evangelize when there are already so many converts.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 17, 7:09�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
> > newsgroups when you start your own company.
>
> When did that happen?

When did Greg Singh start his own company?

>
> > Conversely,
> > that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.
>
> Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no need to continue to
> evangelize when there are already so many converts.

Prove it.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message

> On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
>>> newsgroups when you start your own company.
>>
>> When did that happen?
>
> When did Greg Singh start his own company?

You mean you don't know, Marc?

That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
monitoring RAO.

>>> Conversely,
>>> that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.
>
>> Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
>> need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
>> many converts.

> Prove it.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=59


Read for yourself,

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

"
The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
An ABX test can give us an answer.

In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled A, B,
and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
A and B.

But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What does
this prove ?
Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
more !
That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.

Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test is run
again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For each
test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
of 65536 in average.
We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested. The
goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for the
tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that they
won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times. There
will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
"false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
the less type I errors are likely to happen.
Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that it
changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
can smell it when it is close to the player...

Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is generally
admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out of 20)
should be seriously considered, and that p < 0.01 (one out of 100) is a very
positive result. However, this must be considered according to the context.
We saw that for very suspectful tweaks, like the amulet, it is necessary to
get a very small p value, because between the expected probability for the
amulet to work (say one out of a billion, for example), and the probability
for the test to succeed by chance (1 out of 100 is often chosen), the choice
is obvious : it's the test that succeeded by chance !
Here's another example where numbers can fool us. If we test 20 cables, one
by one, in order to know if they have an effect on the sound, and if we
consider that p < 0.05 is a success, then in the case where no cable have
any actual effect on the sound, since we run 20 tests, we should all the
same expect in average one accidental success among the 20 tests ! In this
case we can absolutely not tell that the cable affects the sound with a
probability of 95%, even while p is inferior to 5 %, since anyway, this
success was expected. The test failed, that's all.

But statistic analyses are not limited to simple powers of 2. If, for
example, we get 14 right answers out of 16, what happens ? Well it is
perfectly possible to calculate the probability that it happens, but mind
that what we need here is not the probability to get exactly 14/16, but the
probability to get 16/16, plus the one to get 15/16, plus the one to get
14/16.
An Excel table gives all needed probabilities :
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip . It is based on a binomial
distribution.

Now, how to setup the listening test so that its result, if positive, is
really convincing ? There are rules to observe if you don't want, in case of
a success, have all your opponent laugh at you.

Rule 1 : It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The burden
of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference can be
heard.
If you believe that a codec changes the sound, it is up to you to prove it,
passing the test. Someone pretending that a codec is transparent can't prove
anything.

2. The test should be performed under double blind conditions (*).
In hardware tests, this is the most difficult requirement to meet. Single
blind means that you can't tell if X is A or B otherwise than listening to
it. Double blind means that nobody in the room or the imediate surrounding
can know if X is A or B, in order to avoid any influence, even unconcious,
on the listener. This complicates the operations for hardware testing. A
third person can lead the blindfolded listener out of the room while the
hardware is switched. High quality electronic switches have been made for
double blind listening tests ( http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm ) :
a chip chooses X at random, and a remote control allows to compare it to A
and B at will.
Fortunately, in order to double blind test audio files on a computer, some
ABX programs are freely available. You can find some in our FAQ.

3. The p values given in the table linked above are valid only if the two
following conditions are fulfilled :
-The listener must not know his results before the end of the test, exept if
the number of trials is decided before the test.
....otherwise, the listener would just have to look at his score after every
answer, and decide to stop the test when, by chance, the p value goes low
enough for him.
-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all previous
results must be summed up in order to get the result.
Otherwise, one would just have to repeat the serial of trials as much times
as needed for getting, by chance, a p value small enough.
Corollary : only give answers of which you are absolutely certain ! If you
have the slightest doubt, don't answer anything. Take your time. Make
pauses. You can stop the test and go on another day, but never try to guess
by "intuition". If you make some mistakes, you will never have the occasion
to do the test again, because anyone will be able to accuse you of making
numbers tell what you want, by "starting again until it works".
Of course you can train yourself as much times as you whish, provided that
you firmly decide beforehand that it will be a training session. If you get
50/50 during a training and then can't reproduce this result, too bad for
you. the results of the training sessions must be thrown away whatever they
are, and the results of the real test must be kept whatever they are.
Once again, if you take all the time needed, be it one week of efforts for
only one answer, in order to get a positive result at the first attempt,
your success will be mathematically unquestionable ! Only your hifi setup,
or your blind test conditions may be disputed. If, on the other hand, you
run again a test that once failed, because since then, your hifi setup was
improved, or there was too much noise the first time, you can be sure that
there will be someone, relying on statistic laws, to come and question your
result. You will have done all this work in vain.

4. The test must be reproducible.
Anyone can post fake results. For example if someone sells thingies that
improve the sound, like oil for CD jewel cases of cable sheath, he can very
well pretend to have passed a double blind ABX test with p < 0.00001, so as
to make people talk about his products.
If someone passes the test, others must check if this is possible, by
passing the test in their turn.


We saw what is an ABX test, with the associated probability calculus, that
is perfectly suited for testing the transparency of a codec, or the validity
of a hifi tweak. But this is only the ABC of statistic tests.
For example, in order to compare the quality of audio codecs like MP3, in
bigger scaled tests, ABC/HR test are used (see
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html ), that are more sophisticated. Each
listener has two sliders and three buttons for every audio codec tested. A
and B are the original and the encoded file. The listener doesn't know which
one is which. C is the original, that stands as a reference. He must give,
using the sliders, a mark between 1 and 5 to A and B, the original getting 5
in theory.
A probability calculation allows then not only to know if the tested codec
audibly alters the sound, but also to estimate the relative quality of the
codecs for the set of listeners involved, and this, still under double blind
conditions, and with a probability calculus giving the relevance of the
result. These calculus, according to the needs of the test, can be performed
with the Friedman method, for example, that gives a ranking for each codec,
or also with the anova one, that gives an estimation of the subjective
quality perceived by the listeners on the 1 to 5 scale.

Note that this kind of statistical analysis is mostly used in medicine, and
that to get an aothorization, any drug must prove its efficiency in double
blind tests (both the physicians and the patients ignore if the pill is a
placebo or a medication) against placebo (the drug must not only prove that
it works, but that it works better than a placebo, because a placebo alone
works too), and the decision is based on mathematical analyses such as the
one we just saw. Thus they are not quickly made guidelines for hifi tests.
They are actually general testing methods used in scientific research, and
they remain entierely valid for audio tests.

Links



(*) The double blind setting may be replaced by a carefully set simple blind
setting. I saw two accounts of simple blind listening tests that failed,
proving that, when done carefully, a simple blind setting is enough to fool
the listener.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=21&t=7953

?"The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
An ABX test can give us an answer.

In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled
A, B, and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
A and B.

But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What
does this prove ?
Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
more !
That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.

Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test
is run again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For
each test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
of 65536 in average.
We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested.
The goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for
the tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that
they won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times.
There will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
"false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
the less type I errors are likely to happen.
Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that
it changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
can smell it when it is close to the player...

Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is
generally admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out
of 20) should be seriously considered, and that p < 0.01 (one out of 100) is
a very positive result. However, this must be considered according to the
context. We saw that for very suspectful tweaks, like the amulet, it is
necessary to get a very small p value, because between the expected
probability for the amulet to work (say one out of a billion, for example),
and the probability for the test to succeed by chance (1 out of 100 is often
chosen), the choice is obvious : it's the test that succeeded by chance !
Here's another example where numbers can fool us. If we test 20
cables, one by one, in order to know if they have an effect on the sound,
and if we consider that p < 0.05 is a success, then in the case where no
cable have any actual effect on the sound, since we run 20 tests, we should
all the same expect in average one accidental success among the 20 tests !
In this case we can absolutely not tell that the cable affects the sound
with a probability of 95%, even while p is inferior to 5 %, since anyway,
this success was expected. The test failed, that's all.

But statistic analyses are not limited to simple powers of 2. If, for
example, we get 14 right answers out of 16, what happens ? Well it is
perfectly possible to calculate the probability that it happens, but mind
that what we need here is not the probability to get exactly 14/16, but the
probability to get 16/16, plus the one to get 15/16, plus the one to get
14/16.
An Excel table gives all needed probabilities :
http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip . It is based on a binomial
distribution.

Now, how to setup the listening test so that its result, if positive,
is really convincing ? There are rules to observe if you don't want, in case
of a success, have all your opponent laugh at you.

Rule 1 : It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exists. The
burden of the proof is on the side of the one pretending that a difference
can be heard.
If you believe that a codec changes the sound, it is up to you to
prove it, passing the test. Someone pretending that a codec is transparent
can't prove anything.

2. The test should be performed under double blind conditions (*).
In hardware tests, this is the most difficult requirement to meet.
Single blind means that you can't tell if X is A or B otherwise than
listening to it. Double blind means that nobody in the room or the imediate
surrounding can know if X is A or B, in order to avoid any influence, even
unconcious, on the listener. This complicates the operations for hardware
testing. A third person can lead the blindfolded listener out of the room
while the hardware is switched. High quality electronic switches have been
made for double blind listening tests (
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm ) : a chip chooses X at random, and
a remote control allows to compare it to A and B at will.
Fortunately, in order to double blind test audio files on a computer,
some ABX programs are freely available. You can find some in our FAQ.

3. The p values given in the table linked above are valid only if the
two following conditions are fulfilled :
-The listener must not know his results before the end of the test,
exept if the number of trials is decided before the test.
...otherwise, the listener would just have to look at his score after
every answer, and decide to stop the test when, by chance, the p value goes
low enough for him.
-The test is run for the first time. And if it is not the case, all
previous results must be summed up in order to get the result.
Otherwise, one would just have to repeat the serial of trials as much
times as needed for getting, by chance, a p value small enough.
Corollary : only give answers of which you are absolutely certain ! If
you have the slightest doubt, don't answer anything. Take your time. Make
pauses. You can stop the test and go on another day, but never try to guess
by "intuition". If you make some mistakes, you will never have the occasion
to do the test again, because anyone will be able to accuse you of making
numbers tell what you want, by "starting again until it works".
Of course you can train yourself as much times as you whish, provided
that you firmly decide beforehand that it will be a training session. If you
get 50/50 during a training and then can't reproduce this result, too bad
for you. the results of the training sessions must be thrown away whatever
they are, and the results of the real test must be kept whatever they are.
Once again, if you take all the time needed, be it one week of efforts
for only one answer, in order to get a positive result at the first attempt,
your success will be mathematically unquestionable ! Only your hifi setup,
or your blind test conditions may be disputed. If, on the other hand, you
run again a test that once failed, because since then, your hifi setup was
improved, or there was too much noise the first time, you can be sure that
there will be someone, relying on statistic laws, to come and question your
result. You will have done all this work in vain.

4. The test must be reproducible.
Anyone can post fake results. For example if someone sells thingies
that improve the sound, like oil for CD jewel cases of cable sheath, he can
very well pretend to have passed a double blind ABX test with p < 0.00001,
so as to make people talk about his products.
If someone passes the test, others must check if this is possible, by
passing the test in their turn.


We saw what is an ABX test, with the associated probability calculus,
that is perfectly suited for testing the transparency of a codec, or the
validity of a hifi tweak. But this is only the ABC of statistic tests.
For example, in order to compare the quality of audio codecs like MP3,
in bigger scaled tests, ABC/HR test are used (see
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html ), that are more sophisticated. Each
listener has two sliders and three buttons for every audio codec tested. A
and B are the original and the encoded file. The listener doesn't know which
one is which. C is the original, that stands as a reference. He must give,
using the sliders, a mark between 1 and 5 to A and B, the original getting 5
in theory.
A probability calculation allows then not only to know if the tested
codec audibly alters the sound, but also to estimate the relative quality of
the codecs for the set of listeners involved, and this, still under double
blind conditions, and with a probability calculus giving the relevance of
the result. These calculus, according to the needs of the test, can be
performed with the Friedman method, for example, that gives a ranking for
each codec, or also with the anova one, that gives an estimation of the
subjective quality perceived by the listeners on the 1 to 5 scale.

Note that this kind of statistical analysis is mostly used in
medicine, and that to get an aothorization, any drug must prove its
efficiency in double blind tests (both the physicians and the patients
ignore if the pill is a placebo or a medication) against placebo (the drug
must not only prove that it works, but that it works better than a placebo,
because a placebo alone works too), and the decision is based on
mathematical analyses such as the one we just saw. Thus they are not quickly
made guidelines for hifi tests. They are actually general testing methods
used in scientific research, and they remain entierely valid for audio
tests.

Links



(*) The double blind setting may be replaced by a carefully set simple
blind setting. I saw two accounts of simple blind listening tests that
failed, proving that, when done carefully, a simple blind setting is enough
to fool the listener.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=21&t=7953



Full Edit
Quick Edit
Pio2001 Apr 14 2006, 01:43 Post #2


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3876
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Interpretation of a blind listening test

Of course ABX test are not infaillible.
Chaudscisse gave an excellent summary of the drawback of ABX testing
in a french forum :
http://chaud7.forum-gratuit.com/viewtopic....&start=450#5543
However, since even for french native speakers the text is almost
incomprehensible, I'll have to make a summary.

Most often, it is admitted that an event whose probability of not
occuring is smaller than 1/20 is "statistically significant". No
interpretation, this p value is the result of a mathematical calculus
relying only on what have been observed. Former results from similar tests,
the quality of the test, and other statistic calculations are not taken into
account. However, these events have an influence on the probability that the
observed difference is real.
a.. Number of testers : Studies made with a small umber of listeners
are more sensitive to mistakes occuring in the test setup. Wrong stimulus
presented, mistakes copying the results etc. For this reason, when the
result depends on one or two people, conclusions must be cautious.
b.. Predictability level : there are more chances to have got a
success after N tests have been performed, than performing only one test.
For example, if we want to test something that has no effect, the result
that we get will be decided by chance only. Imagine that 20 people run
independant tests. According to chance, in average, one of them should get a
"false positive" result, since a positive result is by definition something
that occur no more than one time out of 20. The p calculation of each test
does not take this into account.
c.. Multiple comparisons : if we select two groups in the
population, using one criterion, there will be less than 1 chance out of 20
to get a "statistical difference" between the two. However, if we consider
20 independant criterions, the probability to get a significant difference
according to one of them is much higher than 1/20.
For example, if people are asked to rate the "dynamics",
"soundstage", and "coloration" of an encoder, the probability to get a false
positive is about thrice as high as with one criterion only, since there are
three possibilities for the event to occur. Once again, the p value
associated with each comparison is inferior to the real probability to get a
false positive.


The original text is much longer, with some repetitions, and other
ideas that I didn't translate, because they are not directly related with
ABX tests reliability.

I would like however to add an important point. The interpretation of
the p value.
It is by convetion admitted that p<5 % is an interesting result, and
p<1% a very significant one. This does not take into account the tested
hypothesis itself.

If we are testing the existence of Superman, and get a positive
answer, that is "Superman really exists because the probability of the null
hypothesis is less than 5%". Must we accept the existence of Superman ? Is
it an infaillible, scientific proof of its existence ?
No, it's just chance. Getting an event whose probability is less than
5% is not uncommon.
However, when a listening test about MP3 at 96 kbps gives a similar
significant result, we accept the opposite conclusion ! That it was not
chance. Why ?
Why does the same scientific result should be interpreted in two
opposite ways ? This is because we always keep the most probable hypothesis.
The conclusion of an ABX test is not the p value alone, it is its comparison
with the subjective p value of the tested hypothesis.

Testing MP3 at 96 kbps, what do we expect ? Anything. We start with
the assumption that the odds of success are 1/2. The ABX result then tells
us that the odds of failure are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the success is
the most probable hypothesis.
Testing the existence of Superman, what do we expect ? That he does
not exists. We start with the assumption that the odds of success are less
than one in a million. The ABX result then tells us that the odds of failure
are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the failure is still the most probable
hypothesis.

That's why, in addition with all the statistical bias already
mentionned above we should not always take 1/20 or 1/100 are a target final
p value. This is correct for tests where we don't expect a result more than
another, but for tests where scientific knowledge already gives some
information, smaller values can be necessary.
Personnaly, in order to test the existence of Superman, i'd rather
target p<1/100,000,000

Examples of false positive results :
Regular ABX, 12/13 right answers by chance.
Sequencial ABX, many results with p < 0.01


This topic can be discussed here :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=43516&hl=


"



Full Edit
Quick Edit
Pio2001 Apr 14 2006, 01:43 Post #2


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3876
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



Interpretation of a blind listening test

Of course ABX test are not infaillible.
Chaudscisse gave an excellent summary of the drawback of ABX testing in a
french forum : http://chaud7.forum-gratuit.com/viewtopic....&start=450#5543
However, since even for french native speakers the text is almost
incomprehensible, I'll have to make a summary.

Most often, it is admitted that an event whose probability of not occuring
is smaller than 1/20 is "statistically significant". No interpretation, this
p value is the result of a mathematical calculus relying only on what have
been observed. Former results from similar tests, the quality of the test,
and other statistic calculations are not taken into account. However, these
events have an influence on the probability that the observed difference is
real.
Number of testers : Studies made with a small umber of listeners are more
sensitive to mistakes occuring in the test setup. Wrong stimulus presented,
mistakes copying the results etc. For this reason, when the result depends
on one or two people, conclusions must be cautious.
Predictability level : there are more chances to have got a success after N
tests have been performed, than performing only one test. For example, if we
want to test something that has no effect, the result that we get will be
decided by chance only. Imagine that 20 people run independant tests.
According to chance, in average, one of them should get a "false positive"
result, since a positive result is by definition something that occur no
more than one time out of 20. The p calculation of each test does not take
this into account.
Multiple comparisons : if we select two groups in the population, using one
criterion, there will be less than 1 chance out of 20 to get a "statistical
difference" between the two. However, if we consider 20 independant
criterions, the probability to get a significant difference according to one
of them is much higher than 1/20.
For example, if people are asked to rate the "dynamics", "soundstage", and
"coloration" of an encoder, the probability to get a false positive is about
thrice as high as with one criterion only, since there are three
possibilities for the event to occur. Once again, the p value associated
with each comparison is inferior to the real probability to get a false
positive.


The original text is much longer, with some repetitions, and other ideas
that I didn't translate, because they are not directly related with ABX
tests reliability.

I would like however to add an important point. The interpretation of the p
value.
It is by convetion admitted that p<5 % is an interesting result, and p<1% a
very significant one. This does not take into account the tested hypothesis
itself.

If we are testing the existence of Superman, and get a positive answer, that
is "Superman really exists because the probability of the null hypothesis is
less than 5%". Must we accept the existence of Superman ? Is it an
infaillible, scientific proof of its existence ?
No, it's just chance. Getting an event whose probability is less than 5% is
not uncommon.
However, when a listening test about MP3 at 96 kbps gives a similar
significant result, we accept the opposite conclusion ! That it was not
chance. Why ?
Why does the same scientific result should be interpreted in two opposite
ways ? This is because we always keep the most probable hypothesis. The
conclusion of an ABX test is not the p value alone, it is its comparison
with the subjective p value of the tested hypothesis.

Testing MP3 at 96 kbps, what do we expect ? Anything. We start with the
assumption that the odds of success are 1/2. The ABX result then tells us
that the odds of failure are less than 1/20. Conclusion, the success is the
most probable hypothesis.
Testing the existence of Superman, what do we expect ? That he does not
exists. We start with the assumption that the odds of success are less than
one in a million. The ABX result then tells us that the odds of failure are
less than 1/20. Conclusion, the failure is still the most probable
hypothesis.

That's why, in addition with all the statistical bias already mentionned
above we should not always take 1/20 or 1/100 are a target final p value.
This is correct for tests where we don't expect a result more than another,
but for tests where scientific knowledge already gives some information,
smaller values can be necessary.
Personnaly, in order to test the existence of Superman, i'd rather target
p<1/100,000,000

Examples of false positive results :
Regular ABX, 12/13 right answers by chance.
Sequencial ABX, many results with p < 0.01


This topic can be discussed here :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=43516&hl=

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 11:28�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
> >>> newsgroups when you start your own company.
>
> >> When did that happen?
>
> > When did Greg Singh start his own company?
>
> You mean you don't know, Marc?

I'm suggesting you didn't understand the original comment. I was
right.

>
> That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
> monitoring RAO.

State where I say that I'm effectively monitoring RAO.

>
> >>> Conversely,
> >>> that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.
>
> >> Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
> >> need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
> >> many converts.
> > Prove it.
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=59
>
> Read for yourself,

No thanks.

But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
explain your audio philosophy. Like your other religion, it's pretty
useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
interpret the world around them.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
> explain your audio philosophy. Like your other religion, it's pretty
> useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
> interpret the world around them.

Arnii gave up hope when he realized the pinnacle he would never reach is
already occupied by an accordianist.

http://www.borgmusic.ca/

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 12:02�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > But it is funny that you use words like "evangelize" and "converts" to
> > explain your audio philosophy. �Like your other religion, it's pretty
> > useless to intelligent people who can use their own senses to
> > interpret the world around them.
>
> Arnii gave up hope when he realized the pinnacle he would never reach is
> already occupied by an accordianist.
>
> http://www.borgmusic.ca/

That's it. I'm changing my name to Boris Borgstrom. What an awesome
moniker.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 7:23*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
> the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
> consider.

All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed their ability
to discuss audio!

I think we should start a charity, don't you?

GOIA, consider: audio is essentially dead. iPods, MP3 players, and a
general lack of interest in the younger generation have caused it. I
recall when people would sell possessions to buy a pair of speakers. I
recall when people would learn about electronics in order to build
their own stereo. Those days are long gone. The beginning of the death
of audio was probably when rack systems were the rage in the 1980s.
The decline continues.

The only people left interested in any big way are those who enjoy
high-end. You are dead-set opposed to that group enjoying their hobby.
Any mention of LP gets a canned response about audio artifacts,
distrotion, or whatever. I enjoy seeing it brought up just to see you
get worked up about it. Ditto tubes or anything else that you can't
get at Guitar Center or Home Depot.

No, GOIA, you can quit trying to deflect responsibility. The true
answer about RAO is obvious.

Don't you think it would be better now if you just went to your other
area of 'expertise' (getting your ass handed to you by recording
professionals)?

LOL!

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 12:30�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
> > the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
> > posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
> > consider.
>
> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed their ability
> to discuss audio!
>
> I think we should start a charity, don't you?
>
> GOIA, consider: audio is essentially dead. iPods, MP3 players, and a
> general lack of interest in the younger generation have caused it. I
> recall when people would sell possessions to buy a pair of speakers. I
> recall when people would learn about electronics in order to build
> their own stereo. Those days are long gone. The beginning of the death
> of audio was probably when rack systems were the rage in the 1980s.
> The decline continues.
>
> The only people left interested in any big way are those who enjoy
> high-end. You are dead-set opposed to that group enjoying their hobby.
> Any mention of LP gets a canned response about audio artifacts,
> distrotion, or whatever. I enjoy seeing it brought up just to see you
> get worked up about it. Ditto tubes or anything else that you can't
> get at Guitar Center or Home Depot.

Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. A happy man
doesn't insult people for their interest and hobbies. A happy man
doesn't bear false witness against his neighbors. That's the mark of
a distinctly unhappy man who hates his life. That's the mark of a man
who has reached his 60s and realizes he has done nothing with his
life. That's the mark of a man who also resorts to pointing out the
accomplishments of his children in lieu of taking pride in his own
achievements. That's the mark of a man who knows he will never see
heaven.

That's Arny!

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
>> managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
>> as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
>> to consider.

> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message


> Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. A
> happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
> hobbies.

Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.

>A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
> his neighbors.

So does that.

>That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
> man who hates his life.

You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
a steady job or have a stable relationship?

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 1:56�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. �A
> > happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
> > hobbies.
>
> Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.
>
> >A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
> > his neighbors.
>
> So does that.
>
> >That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
> > man who hates his life.
>
> You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
> a steady job or have a stable relationship?

Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness? Don't you
understand that it's one of the Ten Commandments? Don't you
understand that God has placed it in the same category as murder,
theft and worshipping Satan?

Why do you still do it? Are you lying about being a Christian? Do
you secretly hate your wife, who spends so much time helping the
church? Do you realize that every time you make up lies about other
people, you cancel out the good deeds your wife performs? Do you know
that while you think you're playing around on the Internet, you're
really sealing your own damnation? Is that your intention? Do you
hate Christ and his teachings?

Do you have a real answer, or are you going to lie some more?

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 1:53�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
> >> managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
> >> as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
> >> to consider.
> > All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> > their ability to discuss audio!
>
> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't stop you from
believing.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 3:53*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have even
> >> managed to drive off some very determined posters, such
> >> as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something
> >> to consider.
> > All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> > their ability to discuss audio!
>
> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of what, GOIA? Somebody who knows the *real* reason that RAO has lost
the majority of its posters?

> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could discuss audio.

Why, GOIA, the funny thing is that my last on-topic post here was far
more recently than yours! I'd have expected you to notice that, but
since you're insane you get a pass.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 3:56*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man. *A
> > happy man doesn't insult people for their interest and
> > hobbies.
>
> Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.
>
> >A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
> > his neighbors.
>
> So does that.
>
> >That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
> > man who hates his life.
>
> You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself to be unable to hold
> a steady job or have a stable relationship?

IKYABWAI

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 08:23, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to accomplish. If you consider
> the fact that they have even managed to drive off some very determined
> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are truly something to
> consider.

Singh wasn't half the turd you are.
We still have our work cut out for us.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 14:28, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 7:09?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Funny how you stop having time to post on Usenet
> >>> newsgroups when you start your own company.
>
> >> When did that happen?
>
> > When did Greg Singh start his own company?
>
> You mean you don't know, Marc?
>
> That suggests that contrary to your many claims, you are not effectively
> monitoring RAO.
>
> >>> Conversely,
> >>> that may explain why pcabx.com no longer exists.
>
> >> Given that forums like Hydrogen Audio exist, there's no
> >> need to continue to evangelize when there are already so
> >> many converts.
> > Prove it.
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showforum=59
>
> Read for yourself,
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
>
> "
> The question is to know wether a given factor, cable, speaker stand, mp3
> codec, etc, that we will call "tweak", has an effect on the sound or not,
> without for the time being caring about knowing if this effect is positive.
> An ABX test can give us an answer.
>
> In this kind of test, the listener has access to three sources labeled A, B,
> and X. A and B are the references. They are the audio source with and
> without the tweak. For example the wav file and the MP3 file. X is the
> mystery source. It can be A or B. The listener must guess it comparing it to
> A and B.
>
> But if the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A. What does
> this prove ?
> Nothing of course. If you flip a coin in my back and a state that it's
> heads, and I'm right, it doesn't prove the existence of my para-psychic
> abilities that allow me to see what's in my back. This is just luck, nothing
> more !
> That's why a statistical analysis is necessary.
>
> Let's imagine that after the listener has given his answer, the test is run
> again, choosing again X at random 15 times. If the listener gives the
> correct answer 16 times, what does it prove ? Can it be luck ?
> Yes it can, and we can calculate the probability for it to happen. For each
> test, there is one chance out of two to get the right answer, and 16
> independant tests are run. The probability to get everything correct by
> chance is then 1/2 at the power 16, that is 1/65536. In other words, if no
> difference is audible, the listener will get everything correct one time out
> of 65536 in average.
> We can thus choose the number of trials according to the tweak tested. The
> goal being to get a success probability inferior to the likelihood, for the
> tweak, to actually have an audible effect.
> For example if we compare two pairs of speakers. It is likely that they
> won't have the same sound. We can be content doing the test 7 times. There
> will be 1 chance out of 128 to get a "false success". In statistics, a
> "false success" is called a "type I error". The more the test is repeated,
> the less type I errors are likely to happen.
> Now, if we put an amulet besides a CD player. There is no reason that it
> changes the sound. We can then repeat the test 40 times. The success of
> probability will then be one out of one trillion (2 to the power 40). If it
> ever happens, there is necessarily an explanation : the listener hears the
> operator moving the amulet, or the operator always takes more time to launch
> the playback once the amulet is away, or maybe the listener perceives a
> brightness difference through his eyelids if it is a big dark amulet, or he
> can smell it when it is close to the player...
>
> Let p be the probability of getting a success by chance. It is generally
> admitted that a result whose p value is inferior to 0.05 (one out of 20)
> should be seriously considered, and that p < 0.01 (one out of 100) is a very
> positive result. However, this must be considered according to the context.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 17, 1:56?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man.
>>> ?A happy man doesn't insult people for their interest
>>> and hobbies.
>>
>> Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.
>>
>>> A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
>>> his neighbors.
>>
>> So does that.
>>
>>> That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
>>> man who hates his life.

>> You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself
>> to be unable to hold a steady job or have a stable
>> relationship?

> Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?

??????????????????????

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
>>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
>>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
>>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
>>>> truly something to consider.
>>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
>>> their ability to discuss audio!
>>
>> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>>
>> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
>> discuss audio.

> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> stop you from believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
>
> >>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> >>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> >>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> >>>> truly something to consider.
> >>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> >>> their ability to discuss audio!
>
> >> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> >> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> >> discuss audio.
> > There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > stop you from *believing.
>
> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?-

Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 4:11�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:56?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Yesterday Arny tried to convince me he is a happy man.
> >>> ?A happy man doesn't insult people for their interest
> >>> and hobbies.
>
> >> Well, that pretty well condemns you, Marc.
>
> >>> A happy man doesn't bear false witness against
> >>> his neighbors.
>
> >> So does that.
>
> >>> That's the mark of a distinctly unhappy
> >>> man who hates his life.
> >> You mean someone like you Marc, who has proven himself
> >> to be unable to hold a steady job or have a stable
> >> relationship?
> > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
>
> ??????????????????????-

You don't know why you do it? Don't you think you should get some
professional help then?

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 4:13�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
>
> >>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> >>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> >>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> >>>> truly something to consider.
> >>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> >>> their ability to discuss audio!
>
> >> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> >> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> >> discuss audio.
> > There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > stop you from �believing.
>
> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

No, they were primitive and superstition men who didn't understand the
physical world around them. They met an kind an enlightened prophet
who had a positive message that they liked. But I'm sure they lied
from time to time because they were human.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:11�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > >> wrote in
> > >>
>
> > >>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> > >>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> > >>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> > >>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> > >>>> truly something to consider.
> > >>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> > >>> their ability to discuss audio!
>
> > >> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> > >> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> > >> discuss audio.
> > > There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > > stop you from �believing.
>
> > So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?-
>
> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

That, too. Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
> >
> > ??????????????????????-
>
> You don't know why you do it? Don't you think you should get some
> professional help then?

When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> No, they were primitive and superstition men who didn't understand the
> physical world around them. They met an kind an enlightened prophet
> who had a positive message that they liked. But I'm sure they lied
> from time to time because they were human.

Supposedly, lying is appallingly common among the intellectually lazy.
There's a TV show coming on soon in which a human lie detector solves
crimes. The premise of the guy's "craft" is that people lie all the time,
even in casual conversation. I wonder how Krooger came to dominate the
study group that led to such a strange conclusion.

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:20�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
>
> > > ??????????????????????-
>
> > You don't know why you do it? �Don't you think you should get some
> > professional help then?
>
> When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
> liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.

I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
tell the difference between lies and the truth. That makes perfect
sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
disorder.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > > > > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
> >
> > > > ??????????????????????-
> >
> > > You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
> > > professional help then?
> >
> > When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
> > liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.
>
> I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
> tell the difference between lies and the truth. That makes perfect
> sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
> disorder.

Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 20:32, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > > > > > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
>
> > > > > ??????????????????????-
>
> > > > You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
> > > > professional help then?
>
> > > When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
> > > liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.
>
> > I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
> > tell the difference between lies and the truth. *That makes perfect
> > sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
> > disorder.
>
> Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
> matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.

Is the posse attacking his church this Sunday or next Sunday?
Who is bringing the bus?

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 5:44�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 Noi, 20:32, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Boon said:
>
> > > > > > > Why are you so addicted to bearing false witness?
>
> > > > > > ??????????????????????-
>
> > > > > You don't know why you do it? ?Don't you think you should get some
> > > > > professional help then?
>
> > > > When the first ten or twenty therapists told Turdborg he's a compulsive
> > > > liar and he answered "So what?", they probably just gave up.
>
> > > I think his response is just his way of saying that he can no longer
> > > tell the difference between lies and the truth. �That makes perfect
> > > sense considering that he's suffering from a paranoid personality
> > > disorder.
>
> > Could be. In KrazyBorg's demented state of mind, the only 'truth' that
> > matters is the certainty that his 'enemies' are plotting against him.
>
> Is the posse attacking his church this Sunday or next Sunday?
> Who is bringing the bus?-

Those supposed threats I made about hiding in the motel room with a
sniper rifle still scare Arny nine years later. I re-read those posts
not too long ago, and it was such an obvious joke that I always
assumed Arny was bringing it up via the debating trade. But knowing
he has a paranoid personality disorder, I think he may have been
really frightened.

In other words, ixnay on the usbay. We don't want Arny to be eadyray
for us.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> In other words, ixnay on the usbay. We don't want Arny to be eadyray
> for us.

Booon its like you think you,re the only one who can talk in code-ay Booen.
Thnaks Mr. Philllips for, amodintgggig Boon that Arnii's daddy can eat-bup
you're daddy Bony.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 17, 6:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in
> >>
>
> >>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> >>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> >>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> >>>> truly something to consider.
> >>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> >>> their ability to discuss audio!
>
> >> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> >> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> >> discuss audio.
> > There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > stop you from *believing.
>
> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?

What language did these folks write in, GOIA? ;-)

[Boon]

On Nov 17, 6:57�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > In other words, ixnay on the usbay. �We don't want Arny to be eadyray
> > for us.
>
> Booon its like you think you,re the only one who can talk in code-ay Booen.

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Noi, 23:25, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 6:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > >> wrote in
> > >>
>
> > >>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
>
> > >>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> > >>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> > >>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> > >>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> > >>>> truly something to consider.
> > >>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> > >>> their ability to discuss audio!
>
> > >> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>
> > >> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> > >> discuss audio.
> > > There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > > stop you from *believing.
>
> > So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?
>
> What language did these folks write in, GOIA?

Krooglish, Arny understands them perfectly well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> "Boon" > wrote in message

>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
>>> stop you from believing.

>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
>> etc. were all lying?-

> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)

Paranoid illusions noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message


> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
thousands of translators got it wrong?

Talk about a conspiracy theory! :-(

More like your sloppy inability to read properly Marc, as you demonstrate
daily on RAO.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:05�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
> >>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> >>> stop you from believing.
> >> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> >> etc. were all lying?-
> > Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.
>
> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)
>
> Paranoid illusions noted.

Not a conspiracy, but a business. Concepts such as "faith" are merely
salesmanship. For intelligent people, the whole tithing thing is the
clue that this is an elaborate scam to get people's money.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:06�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Then there's the problem with all of the �sloppy �translations.
>
> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
> thousands of translators got it wrong?

It was like playing telephone...each translation made more mistakes.
Michelangelo put horns on Moses' head in his sculpture because his
translation of the Bible substituted the word "horns" for "halo." If
they can screw up something little like that, imagine how they screwed
up the "big" messages.

>
> Talk about a conspiracy theory! :-(

Nope, just primitive human beings doing the best they could, which
wasn't very good at all. If you want to keep basing your life on the
observations of primitive men 2000 years ago who had no concept of
physics, physiology, geography, etc., then go ahead. And you think
vinyl is obsolete! LOL!

>
> More like your sloppy inability to read properly Marc, as you demonstrate
> daily on RAO.

That sounds like a sloppy IKYABWAI. But then again we're telling you
that your whole belief system is fatally flawed, and you're choosing
not to understand that, either. You're the very definition of a fool.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:05�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
> >>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> >>> stop you from believing.
> >> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> >> etc. were all lying?-
> > Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.
>
> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)
>
> Paranoid illusions noted.

There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and can read our
minds. If we don't follow his rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for
all of eternity.

I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
>>> ?translations.
>>
>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?

> It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
judgment calls.

But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message


> There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
> can read our minds. If we don't follow his rules, we'll
> burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

> I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
> >>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> >>> stop you from believing.
> >> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> >> etc. were all lying?-
> > Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.
>
> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)
>

the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

> Paranoid illusions noted.


that's waht happens when one's eyes are gouged.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Then there's the problem with all of the *sloppy *translations.
>
> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
> thousands of translators got it wrong?
>


Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated from Greek,
not from the original Hebrew.
BTW, where is the 'original one'?
People have been playing "telephone" with it for thousands of years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
>>> translations.
>>
>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?

> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
> from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
usage of the Bible text in its origional language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that some older English
translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
on a Hebrew version of a very similar collection of books called the
Masoretic Text (MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
>>>>> stop you from believing.
>>>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
>>>> etc. were all lying?-
>>> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
>>> lying.
>>
>> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
>> ;-)
>>
>
> the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
thread.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
> >>> translations.
>
> >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
> > from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>
> Wrong again. *A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
> Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
> is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
> usage of the Bible text in its origional language.
>
> What you've Probably *confused in your weak mind is that some older English
> translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
> of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>
> However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
> on a Hebrew version of a *very similar collection of books called the
> Masoretic Text (MT).
>
> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
> Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
> Bibles.
>
> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.


You idiot
MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.
LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly parted.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
> >>>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> >>>>> stop you from believing.
> >>>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> >>>> etc. were all lying?-
> >>> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
> >>> lying.
>
> >> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
> >> ;-)
>
> > the underlying books are fables and fairy tales
>
> Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
> thread.-


There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
You must think that they really happened.

[BretLudwig]

Basically two schools of Bible translation exist, with respect to the
original source documents, the "Textus Receptus" school, and the
archaelogical school. The "TR" school believes the common and easily found
text is the right one because Jeboo Sr, preserved it inerrantly inasmuch as
He would not countenance error, The archaelogocal school rounds up "the
fustest with the mostest" scraps and compares them diligently. Members of
the first school in the Anglosphere tend to be King James Version
fetishists, who assign a Marianist iconhood to the version Authorized by
the old rump ranger King James, which moots the issue for them.

They also HATE the Apocrypha, even though it's in the 1611 Authorized
Version, consistency being a short suit with these dopes. KJV Only
fetishists tend to have particularly low IQs, which is why the fetishize
it exactly like the real Semites (Arabs) fetishize THEIR green holy book,
the Koran. Neither being very bright, the commonality is obvious.

It's like Trekkies arguing which version of any episode of Star Trek is
canonical, the originally aired network one, the ones trimmed for added
commercial time for 1970s-1990s reruns, the ones put on UMatic video for
institutional and cable use early on, the consumo release on VHS, the
early DVD, or the remastered and enhanced (and PC-circumcized at points)
late night aired or remastered DVD releases now in vogue. Or....do you go
by James Blish's novelizations, which were from original script drafts and
often have differing plot changes or character names? Are the animated
sshows canonical or apochryphal? Is Blish's early novel "Spock Must Die"
canonical??

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 9:44�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
> >>> ?translations.
>
> >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> > more mistakes.
>
> As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>
> Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
> based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
> translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
> language(s).

That's not true. Different versions used different manuscripts.

>
> All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
> available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.

>
> As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
> translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
> judgment calls.

Not always.

>
> But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? But thanks for the
regurgitated religious dogma anyway.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 9:47�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
> > can read our minds. �If we don't follow his rules, we'll
> > burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
> > I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.
>
> True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what? You make no sense, as usual.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 12:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
> >>> translations.
>
> >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
> > from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>
> Wrong again. �A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
> Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
> is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
> usage of the Bible text in its origional language.
>
> What you've Probably �confused in your weak mind is that some older English
> translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
> of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>
> However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
> on a Hebrew version of a �very similar collection of books called the
> Masoretic Text (MT).
>
> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
> Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
> Bibles.
>
> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.

Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that Catholic
Church imposed on the text during the Middle Ages. For instance, the
section of the Book of Mark that discusses Jesus and his real views
about homosexuality were suppressed several times. The book you read
now hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been censored
and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil institution. It's really
Satan's finest work in many ways.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 1:01�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >>> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
> > >>>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > >>>>> stop you from believing.
> > >>>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> > >>>> etc. were all lying?-
> > >>> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
> > >>> lying.
>
> > >> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
> > >> ;-)
>
> > > the underlying books are fables and fairy tales
>
> > Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
> > thread.-
>
> There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
> You must think that they really happened.-

Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
Salemanship. It's all salesmanship. And Arny even bought the
extended warranty.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.
>
> Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that Catholic
> Church imposed on the text during the Middle Ages. For instance, the
> section of the Book of Mark that discusses Jesus and his real views
> about homosexuality were suppressed several times. The book you read
> now hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been censored
> and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil institution. It's really
> Satan's finest work in many ways.

The Krooborg is trying to argue that the Booble is full of his beloved
"facts". I'm sure we've all heard this garbage before: Their Booble was
written by their precious "God" Who is all-knowing and all-controlling.
Once you accept that "fact", the rest of it goes down much easier. Sort of
like condoms full of drugs, come to think of it.

Arnii's dementia is dug in deep, and everybody can see it.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 1:01�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >>> On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
> > >>>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> > >>>>> stop you from believing.
> > >>>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
> > >>>> etc. were all lying?-
> > >>> Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
> > >>> lying.
>
> > >> Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
> > >> ;-)
>
> > > the underlying books are fables and fairy tales
>
> > Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
> > thread.-
>
> There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
> You must think that they really happened.

I've seen more and more Christians these days "claim" more progressive
views, and that there is new thinking in the church when it comes to
explaining all of the giant gaps of logic and reason in the Bible. At
the same time, they still have to say that every word in the Bible is
true. So when you tell them that the Bible condones the killings of
homosexuals, runaway slaves and womenfolk who speak out in church,
they say, "Oh, those are the old ways." When you ask them to show you
the part where the rules were changed and God said "I made a mistake,"
they usually get all flustered and spout dogma.

Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are becoming
elaborate IKYABWAIs. They're weak and ineffectual and signify that
Arny is really struggling to maintain his delusion persona of the
pseudo-expert. He's unraveling. I'm not just saying that as a
"debating trade" tactic. I'm saying it because it's pretty obvious to
almost everyone at this point.

Arny has a severe personality disorder. It's textbook. Either he has
to pull a Howard and say "just kidding, everyone...it's just an act"
or we have to seriously consider whether or not it's fair play to
engage someone who desperately needs talking therapy and anti-
psychotic medication.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 10:18�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > Then there's the problem with all of the �sloppy �translations.
>
> > Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
> > thousands of translators got it wrong?
>
> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated from Greek,
> not from the original Hebrew.
> BTW, where is the 'original one'?
> People have been playing "telephone" with it for thousands of years.

The problem is that there is no "original text" that everyone is
copying. The books of the Bible were written by different men who
lived in different areas and spoke in different languages. When Arny
suggests that it was all written in one language or the other in the
beginning, he's clearly full of ****.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 9:44?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
>>>>> ?translations.
>>
>>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
>>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
>>> It was like playing telephone...each translation made
>>> more mistakes.
>>
>> As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>>
>> Bible translations are not serial translations. Later
>> translations aren't based on earlier ones. BTW, that is
>> the meaning of translation - a translation starts out
>> with the best available manuscripts in the original
>> language(s).

> That's not true.

First you disagree with me.

> Different versions used different
> manuscripts.

Then you agree with me in a way that destroys your contradiction.

>> All translations of the Bible were based on the best
>> original documents available in their day.
>
> Written by primitive men, not God.

Prove it.

>> As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts,
>> the later translations used earlier documents, and
>> compared more documents when making judgment calls.

> Not always.

Yes, always. Even the Septuagent involved about 70 different scholars, who
in turn had the run of the Library at Alexandrea, which is still a legend.

>> But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

> Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? But thanks for
> the regurgitated religious dogma anyway.

Well Marc, its clear that if you disagree with it, it *has* to be wrong.
You're a god unto yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
>>>>> translations.
>>
>>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
>>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
>>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
>>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>>
>> Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
>> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
>> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
>> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
>> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
>> language.
>>
>> What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
>> some older English translations of the Old Testament
>> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
>> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>>
>> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
>> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
>> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
>> (MT).

>> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
>> of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
>> decades also for Catholic Bibles.

>> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
>> ignorance.

> You idiot

You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.

> MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.

And that contradicts what I said, how?

> LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
> parted.

And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the King James, ca. 17th
century, how?

You're just talking trash, Art.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 17:49, Boon > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:44 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
> > >>> ?translations.
>
> > >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> > >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > > It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> > > more mistakes.
>
> > As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>
> > Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
> > based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
> > translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
> > language(s).
>
> That's not true. *Different versions used different manuscripts.
>
>
>
> > All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
> > available in their day.
>
> Written by primitive men, not God.
>


Well, I have to say for early people, they did get some universal
things right
about promoting civilized moral behavior, though they missed the boat
on slavery
and gay sex.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 12:47?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
>>>>> translations.
>>
>>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
>>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
>>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
>>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>>
>> Wrong again. ?A great deal of the New Testament was
>> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
>> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
>> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
>> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
>> language.
>>
>> What you've Probably ?confused in your weak mind is that
>> some older English translations of the Old Testament
>> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
>> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>>
>> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
>> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a ?very
>> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
>> (MT).
>>
>> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
>> of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
>> decades also for Catholic Bibles.
>>
>> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
>> ignorance.
>
> Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that
> Catholic Church imposed on the text during the Middle
> Ages.

Yes, and the protestants tolerated that up until present times?

What have you been smoking, boy? ;-)

> For instance, the section of the Book of Mark that
> discusses Jesus and his real views about homosexuality
> were suppressed several times.

Umm, your misinterpretation of Mark 7:14-16?

> The book you read now
> hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been
> censored and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil
> institution.

You're absolutely nuts, Marc. The Bible has been translated by any number of
very indepedent groups of translators and also individual translators. Many
of them had diametrically-opposed theologies.

As usual, we've got Marc spewing paranoid conspiracy theories.

> It's really Satan's finest work in many
> ways.
>
> Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
>>> can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his rules, we'll
>>> burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
>>> I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.
>>
>> True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.
>
> Made up what?

Exactly what you wrote above.

Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
> Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
> as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
> the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
> Salemanship. It's all salesmanship. And Arny even bought the
> extended warranty.

Actually, I heard Krooger got the deluxe plan, which includes a miracle of
the buyer's choice. Arnii selected the Toilet of Perpetual Overflowing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
> >>>>> translations.
>
> >>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> >>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
> >>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>
> >> Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
> >> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
> >> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
> >> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
> >> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
> >> language.
>
> >> What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
> >> some older English translations of the Old Testament
> >> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
> >> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>
> >> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
> >> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
> >> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
> >> (MT).
> >> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
> >> of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
> >> decades also for Catholic Bibles.
> >> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
> >> ignorance.
> > You idiot
>
> You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.
>
> > MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.
>
> And that contradicts what I said, how?

it contradicts that modern translations
are correctly taken form original text
its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.




>
> > LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
> > parted.
>
> And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the King James, ca. 17th
> century, how?
>

you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea parted
thousands
of years before that, and the fable was written down thousands of
years before the 17th century


> You're just talking trash, Art.-


you are making **** up, like
you didn't even need to, you already have
too much of the real deal.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 19:19, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Boon said:
>
> > Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
> > Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
> > as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
> > the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
> > Salemanship. *It's all salesmanship. *And Arny even bought the
> > extended warranty.
>
> Actually, I heard Krooger got the deluxe plan, which includes a miracle of
> the buyer's choice. Arnii selected the Toilet of Perpetual Overflowing.

Its no miracle, its just that his toilet got clogged up
with too many 'used' $1,000 checks.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:51�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:44?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
> >>>>> ?translations.
>
> >>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> >>> It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> >>> more mistakes.
>
> >> As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>
> >> Bible translations are not serial translations. Later
> >> translations aren't based on earlier ones. BTW, that is
> >> the meaning of translation - a translation starts out
> >> with the best available manuscripts in the original
> >> language(s).
> > That's not true.
>
> First you disagree with me.
>
> > �Different versions used different
> > manuscripts.
>
> Then you agree with me in a way that destroys your contradiction.
>
> >> All translations of the Bible were based on the best
> >> original documents available in their day.
>
> > Written by primitive men, not God.
>
> Prove it.
>
> >> As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts,
> >> the later translations used earlier documents, and
> >> compared more documents when making judgment calls.
> > Not always.
>
> Yes, always. Even the Septuagent involved about 70 different scholars, who
> in turn had the run of the Library at Alexandrea, which is still a legend..
>
> >> But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!
> > Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? �But thanks for
> > the regurgitated religious dogma anyway.
>
> Well Marc, its clear that if you disagree with it, it *has* to be wrong.
> You're a god unto yourself.

Religious dogma, every word.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:55�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 18 Noi, 17:49, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:44 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > > > On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> > >
>
> > > >>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
> > > >>> ?translations.
>
> > > >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> > > >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > > > It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> > > > more mistakes.
>
> > > As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>
> > > Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
> > > based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
> > > translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
> > > language(s).
>
> > That's not true. �Different versions used different manuscripts..
>
> > > All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
> > > available in their day.
>
> > Written by primitive men, not God.
>
> Well, I have to say for early people, they did get some universal
> things right
> about promoting civilized moral behavior, though they missed the boat
> on slavery
> and gay sex.

Religion is nothing more than a social control. Make people believe
that there is an afterlife where they will be judged, and they'll
behave. It's not brain surgery to see the intent behind all of this.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 12:47?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
> >>>>> translations.
>
> >>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >>>> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> >>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
> >>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>
> >> Wrong again. ?A great deal of the New Testament was
> >> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
> >> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
> >> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
> >> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
> >> language.
>
> >> What you've Probably ?confused in your weak mind is that
> >> some older English translations of the Old Testament
> >> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
> >> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>
> >> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
> >> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a ?very
> >> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
> >> (MT).
>
> >> The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
> >> of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
> >> decades also for Catholic Bibles.
>
> >> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
> >> ignorance.
>
> > Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that
> > Catholic Church imposed on the text during the Middle
> > Ages.
>
> Yes, and the protestants tolerated that up until present times?

The Protestants lived in the Middle Ages? Is that what you're trying
to say?

>
> What have you been smoking, boy? ;-)

More pedophilic fantasies?

>
> > For instance, the section of the Book of Mark that
> > discusses Jesus and his real views about homosexuality
> > were suppressed several times.
>
> Umm, your misinterpretation of Mark 7:14-16?

Nope, not even close. You have no clue about the Missing Gospel since
your church has repressed it for you.


>
> > �The book you read now
> > hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been
> > censored and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil
> > institution.
>
> You're absolutely nuts, Marc. The Bible has been translated by any number of
> very indepedent groups of translators and also individual translators. Many
> of them had diametrically-opposed theologies.

So you're saying that if a bunch of guys worked on it, it must be
correct? Apparently you haven't tried Vista.

>
> As usual, we've got Marc spewing paranoid conspiracy theories.

No, we don't. That's your projection. And the more you do it, the
more you confirm my observations.


> > It's really Satan's finest work in many
> > ways.

No response? You really are worshipping the Devil, you know. It says
so in the Bible.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:58�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
> >>> can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his rules, we'll
> >>> burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
> >>> I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.
>
> >> True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.
>
> > Made up what?
>
> Exactly what you wrote above.
>
> Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

No. Why the **** did you try to pull this out of your ass? As the
day goes on, your disorder becomes more obvious.

>
> LOL!

Not so much. I'm remembering my psychology more and more. You're
less amusing than you used to be. You're just in need of help.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 3:58?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky
>>>>> and can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his
>>>>> rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for all of
>>>>> eternity.
>>>>> I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.
>>
>>>> True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.
>>
>>> Made up what?
>>
>> Exactly what you wrote above.
>>
>> Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?
>
> No.

OK Marc, so you were lying again, like the habitual liar that you are. You
call that normal? LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message


> Make
> people believe that there is an afterlife where they will
> be judged, and they'll behave.

Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason to behave, and so
Marc acts like he does.

[Arny Krueger]

Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
>>>>>>> translations.
>>
>>>>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and
>>>>>> every one of those thousands of translators got it
>>>>>> wrong?
>>>>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
>>>>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>>
>>>> Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
>>>> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
>>>> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
>>>> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
>>>> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
>>>> language.
>>
>>>> What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
>>>> some older English translations of the Old Testament
>>>> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
>>>> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>>
>>>> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
>>>> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
>>>> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
>>>> (MT).
>>>> The MT is also widely used as the basis for
>>>> translations of the Old Testament in Protestant
>>>> Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic Bibles.
>>>> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
>>>> ignorance.
>>> You idiot
>>
>> You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.
>>
>>> MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more
>>> recent.

>> And that contradicts what I said, how?

> it contradicts that modern translations
> are correctly taken form original text
> its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.

No it doesn't. The MT is far from being the only authority that is used.

Besides Art, you're arguing with yourself.

>>> LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
>>> parted.
>>
>> And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the
>> King James, ca. 17th century, how?

> you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea
> parted thousands
> of years before that, and the fable was written down
> thousands of years before the 17th century

OSAF.

>> You're just talking trash, Art.-

> you are making **** up,

Not at all, in fact I can back everything I said with references from
authoritative sources.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > habitually lied in message


> Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are
> becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.

Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.

Stop lying Marc, if you can.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 18, 11:44*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
> >>> ?translations.
>
> >> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
> >> one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
> > It was like playing telephone...each translation made
> > more mistakes.
>
> As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.
>
> Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
> based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
> translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
> language(s).
>
> All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
> available in their day.
>
> As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
> translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
> judgment calls.
>
> But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

I suggest you study what happened in Constantinople, GOIA, where the
"valid" contents of your bible were voted on.

[clanker]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Boon" > habitually lied in message
>
>
>> Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are
>> becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.
>
> Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.
>

.....like your talking snake ?

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 21:59, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in
> >>>> message
>
>
>
> >>>>> On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
> >>>>>>> translations.
>
> >>>>>> Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and
> >>>>>> every one of those thousands of translators got it
> >>>>>> wrong?
> >>>>> Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
> >>>>> translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.
>
> >>>> Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
> >>>> originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
> >>>> So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
> >>>> mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
> >>>> correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
> >>>> language.
>
> >>>> What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
> >>>> some older English translations of the Old Testament
> >>>> were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
> >>>> of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.
>
> >>>> However, Bible translators have long had access, and
> >>>> have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
> >>>> similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
> >>>> (MT).
> >>>> The MT is also widely used as the basis for
> >>>> translations of the Old Testament in Protestant
> >>>> Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic Bibles.
> >>>> IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
> >>>> ignorance.
> >>> You idiot
>
> >> You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.
>
> >>> MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more
> >>> recent.
> >> And that contradicts what I said, how?
> > it contradicts that modern translations
> > are correctly taken form original text
> > its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.
>
> No it doesn't. The MT is far from being the only authority that is used.
>


LOL!!!!
You yourself brought it up as the prevalent one


> Besides Art, you're arguing with yourself.
>

LOL
GOIA!!!!!


> >>> LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
> >>> parted.
>
> >> And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the
> >> King James, ca. 17th century, how?
> > you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea
> > parted thousands
> > of years before that, and the fable was written down
> > thousands of years before the 17th century
>
> OSAF.
>

Thanks for making my point, there is NO fact
regarding the parting of the Dead Seaqd
and all the other Biblical fairy tales that you believe iin.





> >> You're just talking trash, Art.-
> > you are making **** up,
>
> Not at all, in fact I can back everything I said with references from
> authoritative sources.-

Let's bring Rev Matt into this discussion
of your floobydust beliefs.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 22:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > habitually lied in
>
> > Look at Arny's arguments here. *More and more they are
> > becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.
>
> Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.
>


Yes, you have been cited by an authoritarian source, you have been
cited by a MSP detective for storing kp
on your hard drive for three years.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> Let's bring Rev Matt into this discussion
> of your floobydust beliefs.

I hardly think that's fair to poor Arnii. The Rev is always preaching about
being a good *living* person, give love and support to those who need it,
and other virtuous stuff. Religious dogma is mere "debating trade" fodder
for the Krooborg. He has no use for all that moralistic crap he gets from
Pastor Matt.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:54�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:58?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>>>> There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky
> >>>>> and can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his
> >>>>> rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for all of
> >>>>> eternity.
> >>>>> I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.
>
> >>>> True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.
>
> >>> Made up what?
>
> >> Exactly what you wrote above.
>
> >> Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?
>
> > No.
>
> OK Marc, so you were lying again, like the habitual liar that you are. You
> call that normal? LOL!

You have a habit of calling people liars when you don't understand
what they're telling you.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Make
> > people believe that there is an afterlife where they will
> > be judged, and they'll behave.
>
> Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason to behave, and so
> Marc acts like he does.

Actually, studies prove that atheists are more ethical in morally
ambiguous situations than Christians. Christians tend not to worry
about making the right choice because they can always ask for
forgiveness later. Atheists tend to do the right thing the first time
since they now there is no afterlife for "extra credit" assignments.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 7:00�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > habitually lied in
>
> > Look at Arny's arguments here. �More and more they are
> > becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.
>
> Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.

There's nothing authoritative about religion. No single human knows
any more than any other single human about what happens after we die.
It's all guessing.

>
> Stop lying Marc, if you can.

About what? Do you really think that calling people liars when you're
upset solves anything?

Boon

[Ian Mitchell[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>> On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>>> wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
>>>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
>>>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
>>>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
>>>>> truly something to consider.
>>>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
>>>> their ability to discuss audio!
>>>
>>> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
>>>
>>> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
>>> discuss audio.
>
>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
>> stop you from believing.
>
> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?
>
>

The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in Josephus, has long been
accepted by scholars and theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later
date by 'honest' christian editor/s. If you don't know this Arny, then you
are simply not well enough read to debate the topic. As for the other
sources, written up to 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who
never knew him, supposedly guided by a 'holy' spirit, well, as the reported
words of Jesus himself make plain, 'By their fruits shall ye know them'. I
suggest you widen your reading to bring yourself up to date, and you could
do far worse than to start with 'The Unorthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox
(a brilliant scholar known best for his seminal work on the life of
Alexander the Great). A warning!! if anything of your mind remains open,
then your world is about to turn upside down.

[roughplanet[_2_]]

"Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

"Boon" > wrote in message


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
messagenews: fbfc5847-7605-4194-905e


>>>>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
>>>>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
>>>>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
>>>>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
>>>>>> truly something to consider.
>>>>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
>>>>> their ability to discuss audio!

>>>> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

>>>> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
>>>> discuss audio.

>>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
>>> stop you from believing.

>> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all
>> lying?

> The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in Josephus, has long been
> accepted by scholars and theologians to be a forgery, inserted at a later
> date by 'honest' christian editor/s. If you don't know this Arny, then you
> are simply not well enough read to debate the topic. As for the other
> sources, written up to 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who
> never knew him, supposedly guided by a 'holy' spirit, well, as the
> reported words of Jesus himself make plain, 'By their fruits shall ye know
> them'. I suggest you widen your reading to bring yourself up to date, and
> you could do far worse than to start with 'The Unaurthorised Version" by
> Robin Lane Fox (a brilliant scholar known best for his seminal work on the
> life of Alexander
> the Great). A warning!! if anything of your mind remains open, then your
> world is about to turn upside down.

For someone who insists on.....no, demands scientific analysis on almost
every point at issue on this & other newsgroups, Arny's willingness to
believe in dubious anecdotes concerning the life & times of Jesus Christ is
indeed a mystery, or at least, a case of the most glaring hypocrisy seen
here.

Not one historical fact, nor proof of the existence of Jesus Christ
confirmable by science exists. Just anecdote after anecdote, which, given
Arny's reluctance to accept them as a point of argument from anyone else,
leaves his belief system high & dry, a bit like Noah's Ark.

But I forgot.....there's no proof of that either, just a few more anecdotes
which leaves believers quite a mountain to climb :-).
Oh dear.

ruff

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Nov 18, 6:57?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Make
>>> people believe that there is an afterlife where they
>>> will be judged, and they'll behave.

Note that Marc makes an argument that says that Christians are behave better
because they are worried about what their reward will be in the after life.

>> Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason
>> to behave, and so Marc acts like he does.

> Actually, studies prove that atheists are more ethical in
> morally ambiguous situations than Christians.

Note that Marc now contradicts his earlier assertion that Christians are
behave better because they are worried about what their reward will be in
the after life.

It's another one of Marc's Boonie-facts. Not only that, but he's arguing
with himself again.

No documentation, no references, just another piece of wisdom from the
"great man's" mouth.

What a maroon!

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message


> I have a habit of calling people liars when I don't
> understand what they're telling me.


There, there now Marc. Isn't confession good for the soul?

Oh, I forgot. You don't think you have a soul.

Just another one of your lies and self-contradictions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message


> The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in
> Josephus, has long been accepted by scholars and
> theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later date by
> 'honest' christian editor/s.

You're obvioiusly a fool, Iain.

Some so-called scholar some place has accepted just about every weird idea
that anybody has some up with.

Of course, your scholars have no names, are not published anywhere, and
could easily be a figment of your mind.

Or, you might even be one of those scholars who believes just about any idea
that flies into your head,

> If you don't know this Arny,
> then you are simply not well enough read to debate the
> topic.

Given that you have cited no sources, this would be an example of proof by
means of bogus authority.

If you had a brain, you'd know that this is no way to debate a topic like
this.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 5:58*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > You have a habit of calling people liars when you don't
> > understand what they're telling you.
>
> There, there now Marc. I want to mate with you. Confession is good for the soul!

WTG, GOIA!

We'll add you to the supporters of gay marriage on RAO.

Thanks!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 5:56*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> No documentation, no references, just another piece of wisdom from the
> "great man's" mouth.

Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.

> What a maroon!

Your foot, your mouth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
>> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.

> Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.

****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
Christian religion.

The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
supported by excellent academic scholarship.

It's kinda disappointing how poorly informed the local posse of
hate-Christianity pundits really is. Not surprising though, you're no better
on any other topic.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 7:11*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> Christian religion.
>
> The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> supported by excellent academic scholarship.

And none of it is contemporary with The Man. Oh, sure, Jeruselem
existed then, GOIA, but the bible was written long after and by word
of mouth.

You are an atheist, GOIA. The difference is that I believe in one less
god than you do.

> It's kinda disappointing how poorly informed the local posse of
> hate-Christianity pundits really is.

I think Christianity is a beautiful thing, GOIA. You should try it
sometime.

Why not provide your proof, then, GOIA, and inform the ignorant
masses? Here's your chance to prove that "faith" has nothing to do
with it, and that you base your religious preference on scientific
"proof"!

> Not surprising though, you're no better on any other topic.

Uh-huh.

Anyhow, go for it, GOIA! You might notch a conversion or two in your
quest to enter heaven! Wouldn't that be *great*?

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Noi, 05:26, "roughplanet" > wrote:
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> messagenews: fbfc5847-7605-4194-905e
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
> >>>>>> accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
> >>>>>> even managed to drive off some very determined
> >>>>>> posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
> >>>>>> truly something to consider.
> >>>>> All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
> >>>>> their ability to discuss audio!
> >>>> You're a prime example, ****R. :-(
> >>>> Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
> >>>> discuss audio.
> >>> There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
> >>> stop you from believing.
> >> So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all
> >> lying?
> > The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in Josephus, has long been
> > accepted by scholars and theologians to be a forgery, inserted at a later
> > date by 'honest' christian editor/s. If you don't know this Arny, then you
> > are simply not well enough read to debate the topic. As for the other
> > sources, written up to 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who
> > never knew him, supposedly guided by a 'holy' spirit, well, as the
> > reported words of Jesus himself make plain, 'By their fruits shall ye know
> > them'. I suggest you widen your reading to bring yourself up to date, and
> > you could do far worse than to start with 'The Unaurthorised Version" by
> > Robin Lane Fox (a brilliant scholar known best for his seminal work on the
> > life of Alexander
> > *the Great). A warning!! if anything of your mind remains open, then your
> > world is about to turn upside down.
>
> For someone who insists on.....no, demands scientific analysis on almost
> every point at issue on this & other newsgroups, Arny's willingness to
> believe in dubious anecdotes concerning the life & times of Jesus Christ is
> indeed a mystery, or at least, a case of the most glaring hypocrisy seen
> here.
>
> Not one historical fact, nor proof of the existence of Jesus Christ
> confirmable by science exists. Just anecdote after anecdote, which, given
> Arny's reluctance to accept them as a point of argument from anyone else,
> leaves his belief system high & dry, a bit like Noah's Ark.
>
> But I forgot.....there's no proof of that either, just a few more anecdotes
> which leaves believers quite a mountain to climb :-).
> Oh dear.
>
> ruff-

the condensed version: floobydust

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Noi, 07:01, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message

>
> Some so-called scholar some place has accepted just about every weird idea
> that anybody has some up with.
>


Like all the floobydust found in the Old and New Testaments

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Noi, 08:11, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> Christian religion.
>
> The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> supported by excellent academic scholarship.
>

On such floobydust events as the virgin birth and resurrection, no
doubt!

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 3:56�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:57?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> Make
> >>> people believe that there is an afterlife where they
> >>> will be judged, and they'll behave.
>
> Note that Marc makes an argument that says that Christians are behave better
> because they are worried about what their reward will be in the after life.
>
> >> Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason
> >> to behave, and so Marc acts like he does.
> > Actually, studies prove that atheists are more ethical in
> > morally ambiguous situations than Christians.
>
> Note that Marc now contradicts his earlier assertion �that Christians are
> behave better because they are worried about what their reward will be in
> the after life.
>
> It's another one of Marc's Boonie-facts. Not only that, but he's arguing
> with himself again.
>
> No documentation, no references, just another piece of wisdom from the
> "great man's" mouth.
>
> What a maroon!

I'm not surprised that you, a Christian, are having trouble
understanding this since this is the very basis of Christ. In fact,
many theologians believe this is why Jesus Christ came along...it was
simply too difficult for people to comply with the Ten Commandments.
(In other words, the invincible and supposedly perfect God was wrong
again and had to send his son down to fix everything by dying for our
sins...a rather bizarre solution.)

There is no contradiction. It's simply that Christians are unable to
comply to their own laws and standards. That's why hypocrisy is so
rampant among Christians. The fact that you continually bear false
witness against your neighbors confirm this.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 3:58�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >YouI have a habit of calling people liars when you don't
> > understand what they're telling me.
>
> There, there now Marc. Isn't confession good for the soul?

You tell me. Besides, God doesn't fall for your cheap parlor tricks,
and neither does anyone else here. When you edit other people's words
and try to pass it off as the original, that's a lie. That's another
Commandment broken. Are you sure other Christians want you to speak
for them?

>
> Oh, I forgot. You don't think you have a soul.

That's not true, either. Show where I said I don't think I have a
soul.

>
> Just another one of your lies and self-contradictions.

Nope. Just another example of how dumb you are. A smart person says,
"I don't undersatnd what you are saying." A dumb person interprets
things he doesn't understand as lies.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 4:01�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in
> > Josephus, has long been accepted by scholars and
> > theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later date by
> > 'honest' christian editor/s.
>
> You're obvioiusly a fool, Iain.
>
> Some so-called scholar some place has accepted just about every weird idea
> that anybody has some up with.

But you believe in the Bible becuase 70 scholars got together and
edited the text. LOL!

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 4:21�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:56�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > No documentation, no references, just another piece of wisdom from the
> > "great man's" mouth.
>
> Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> > What a maroon!
>
> Your foot, your mouth.

It's amazing just how dramatic Arny's implosion is. I knew if we got
him to argue religion that he'd look like an absolute idiot. The
added bonus is that we're effectively attacking his belief system and
making him incredibly upset and defensive.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 5:11�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> Christian religion.
>
> The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> supported by excellent academic scholarship.
>
> It's kinda disappointing how poorly informed the local posse of
> hate-Christianity pundits really is. Not surprising though, you're no better
> on any other topic.

What evidence?

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 5:54�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:11�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in
>
> > > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> > >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> > ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> > Christian religion.
>
> > The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> > of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> > supported by excellent academic scholarship.
>
> And none of it is contemporary with The Man. Oh, sure, Jeruselem
> existed then, GOIA, but the bible was written long after and by word
> of mouth.
>
> You are an atheist, GOIA. The difference is that I believe in one less
> god than you do.
>
> > It's kinda disappointing how poorly informed the local posse of
> > hate-Christianity pundits really is.
>
> I think Christianity is a beautiful thing, GOIA. You should try it
> sometime.

That reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi's thoughts on Christianity:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ."

When you look at what Jesus said in the Gospels, it's some really
beautiful and enlightened stuff. Too bad the rest of the Bible is
such crap, and that Christians like Arny are so full of hate.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 6:00�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Noi, 08:11, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in
>
> > > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> > >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> > ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> > Christian religion.
>
> > The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> > of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> > supported by excellent academic scholarship.
>
> On such floobydust events as the virgin birth and resurrection, no
> doubt!

That's right. If Christ knew he was going to be resurrected, it
wasn't really that big of a sacrifice! As a Christian, I'd feel
gypped.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > You don't think you have a soul.

> That's not true, either. Show where I said I don't think I have a soul.

Actually, the soul notion isn't unique to christianity. It exists in most
religions and philosophies.

The uniquely christian part is that the soul can survive death and go to
"heaven" or "hell", where magical angels convince the soul that it's
experiencing pleasure or pain even though it's disembodied. It's all very
sceieicnntititffik. Just ask Arnii. ;-)

[Boon]

On Nov 19, 4:20�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:58�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > You have a habit of calling people liars when you don't
> > > understand what they're telling you.
>
> > There, there now Marc. I want to mate with you. Confession is good for the soul!
>
> WTG, GOIA!
>
> We'll add you to the supporters of gay marriage on RAO.
>
> Thanks!

Arny has only had sex with one person in his entire life. I can see
why he would want to branch out.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 8:00*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Noi, 08:11, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
> > > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> No documentation, no references, just another piece of
> > >> wisdom from the "great man's" mouth.
> > > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> > ****R, that just shows how ignorant you are of the literature of the
> > Christian religion.
>
> > The Christian religion is actually hugely documented, involves a huge number
> > of different authors and source, supported by archeological evidence, and
> > supported by excellent academic scholarship.
>
> On such floobydust events as the virgin birth and resurrection, no
> doubt!

And GOIA is such an excellent proponent of it that he calls people
"Middiot" and "****R". Just like Jesus would have!

GOIA is proof positive of one thing: you don't have to read (or
believe in) the bible to be a "Christian". LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 8:52*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 4:21 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:56 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > No documentation, no references, just another piece of wisdom from the
> > > "great man's" mouth.
>
> > Hm. That sounds a lot like Christianity.
>
> > > What a maroon!
>
> > Your foot, your mouth.
>
> It's amazing just how dramatic Arny's implosion is. *I knew if we got
> him to argue religion that he'd look like an absolute idiot. *The
> added bonus is that we're effectively attacking his belief system and
> making him incredibly upset and defensive.

Despite all of GOIA's claims to the contrary (he posts with minimal
effort here to troll) I'd say he's related to James Brown: "The
hardest working man in show business!"

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 8:46*am, Boon > wrote:

> There is no contradiction. *It's simply that Christians are unable to
> comply to their own laws and standards. *That's why hypocrisy is so
> rampant among Christians. *The fact that you continually bear false
> witness against your neighbors confirm this.

Go easy on him, Boon. GOIA's insanity may have something to do with
this.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 19, 9:11*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 4:20 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:58 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > > > You have a habit of calling people liars when you don't
> > > > understand what they're telling you.
>
> > > There, there now Marc. I want to mate with you. Confession is good for the soul!
>
> > WTG, GOIA!
>
> > We'll add you to the supporters of gay marriage on RAO.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> Arny has only had sex with one person in his entire life. *I can see
> why he would want to branch out.

If GOIA wants to argue like a second-grader, I want to help him.

GOIA may be creeping toward violence. I don't want to read about his
family in the paper.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in
>> Josephus, has long been accepted by scholars and
>> theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later date by
>> 'honest' christian editor/s.
>
> You're obvioiusly a fool, Iain.

Oh dear. Any is locked into perpetual spelling
error mode. He continually mis-spells my own
name (Iain ) as Ian and now mis-spells Ian
Mitchell's frst name as Iain.

Or maybe he does not realise we are
two different people? It would not be the first
time he has been confused in this way :-)

There really is no hope for the illiterate Detroit
baptist :-(

Iain

[Ian Mitchell[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in
>> Josephus, has long been accepted by scholars and
>> theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later date by
>> 'honest' christian editor/s.
>
> You're obvioiusly a fool, Iain.
>
> Some so-called scholar some place has accepted just about every weird idea
> that anybody has some up with.
>
> Of course, your scholars have no names, are not published anywhere, and
> could easily be a figment of your mind.
>
> Or, you might even be one of those scholars who believes just about any
> idea that flies into your head,
>
>> If you don't know this Arny,
>> then you are simply not well enough read to debate the
>> topic.
>
> Given that you have cited no sources, this would be an example of proof
> by means of bogus authority.
>
> If you had a brain, you'd know that this is no way to debate a topic like
> this.
>
You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny and it's difficult
dealing with a bigot, but lets limit our sources to the one you're happy
with. Why don't you go look up the following references and get back to me.

Jesus's pedigree

Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus
Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even the same names!)

Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through Davd's son, Solomon
Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan

Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was Jesus' father eleswhere
they both state that Joseph was Jesus's father

Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph
Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary

Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had concieved.
Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception

Holy Spirit inconsistancies

Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of John the Baptist
John 3:22-24 Before it

Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from before his birth, six
months before the birth of Jesus

Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer, presumably at any time
but wait!!
John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world until after Jesus has
departed.
John 16:7 As above
Acts 1:3-5 As above

There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.

The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to us as the Word of
God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It appears God may be in need of a
proof-reader

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message


> You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny

Oh, another know-it-all without any self-awareness.

> and it's difficult dealing with a bigot,

...but I'll try to be polite.

> but lets limit our
> sources to the one you're happy with. Why don't you go
> look up the following references and get back to me.
Jesus's pedigree

> Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
> David to Jesus

Wrong:

(New International Version)

17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to
the Christ.[b]"

Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.

> Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
> the same names!)

Hmm, 42 = 42.

Next!


> Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through
> Davd's son,

Not in Matt 1:16.

Matt 1:16 (NIV)

"16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ."

Next!

Solomon Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan

Actual contents of Luke 3:23:

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Next!


> Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was
> Jesus' father eleswhere they both state that Joseph was
> Jesus's father

You need to update your knowlege of Christian theology. Christian theology
states that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly Man. Thus there is no
inconsistency, since Jesus was therefore both wholly the son of Joseph and
the son of God in the identity of the Holy Spirit.

Next!

> Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph

> Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary

> Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had
> concieved.

> Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception

????? Just fragments, nothing to comment on.

> Holy Spirit inconsistancies

> Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of
> John the Baptist John 3:22-24 Before it

> Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from
> before his birth, six months before the birth of Jesus

> Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer,
> presumably at any time but wait!!


> John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world
> until after Jesus has departed.

Actually it says:

John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
had not yet been glorified.

The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.

Next!

> John 16:7 As above

Next!

> Acts 1:3-5 As above

Next!

> There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.

Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious.

> The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to
> us as the Word of God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It
> appears God may be in need of a proof-reader

It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
ever known!

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> Actually it says:
>
> John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
> later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
> had not yet been glorified.
>
> The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
> since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
> ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.
>

> Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious.
>

Arny "knows" Christianity and its "theology" as well as he
"knows" audio.
Next up, ask him to explain'the rational scientific basis of the Holy
Spirit.

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny
>
> Oh, another know-it-all without any self-awareness.
>
> > and it's difficult dealing with a bigot,
>
> ..but I'll try to be polite.
>
> > but lets limit our
> > sources to the one you're happy with. Why don't you go
> > look up the following references and get back to me.
>
> *Jesus's pedigree
>
> > Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
> > David to Jesus
>
> Wrong:
>
> (New International Version)
>
> 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
> fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to
> the Christ.[b]"
>
> Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.
>
> > Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
> > the same names!)
>
> Hmm, 42 = 42.
>
> Next!
>
> > Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through
> > Davd's son,
>
> Not in Matt 1:16.
>
> Matt 1:16 (NIV)
>
> "16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
> Jesus, who is called Christ."
>
> Next!
>
> Solomon Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan
>
> Actual contents of Luke 3:23:
>
> *23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
> He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
>
> Next!
>
> > Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was
> > Jesus' father eleswhere they both state that Joseph was
> > Jesus's father
>
> You need to update your knowlege of Christian theology. Christian theology
> states that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly Man. *Thus there is no
> inconsistency, since Jesus was therefore both wholly the son of Joseph and
> the son of God in the identity of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Next!
>
> > Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph
> > Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary
> > Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had
> > concieved.
> > Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception
>
> ????? Just fragments, nothing to comment on.
>
> > Holy Spirit inconsistancies
> > Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of
> > John the Baptist John 3:22-24 Before it
> > Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from
> > before his birth, six months before the birth of Jesus
> > Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer,
> > presumably at any time but wait!!
> > John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world
> > until after Jesus has departed.
>
> Actually it says:
>
> John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
> later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
> had not yet been glorified.
>
> The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
> since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
> ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.
>
> Next!
>
> > John 16:7 As above
>
> Next!
>
> > Acts 1:3-5 As above
>
> Next!
>
> > There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.
>
> Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious.
>
> > The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to
> > us as the Word of God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It
> > appears God may be in need of a proof-reader
>
> It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> ever known!

This is predcious, we have Arny presenting Biblical floobydust events,
Biblical floobydust concepts like the Holy Sprit and Biblical flooby
dust people
as actually being "real"

Prove that Jesus existed, even as a man
Prove that Luke existed
Priove that Mathew existed
Prove that there exists such a thing as the Holy Spirit
Prove that abraham existed
Prove that David existed
Prove that Solomon existed
'Priove that Nathan existed
Prove that Mary existed
Prove that Joseph existed
Prove that there was an exile form Babylon
Prove that Jacob existed
Proive that Jesus was crucified
Prove that angels exist
Prove that angels speak to people
Prove that God exists.

And much thanks to Iain for skilllfully
eliciting from Arny all of these
floobydust arguments

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 4:59�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny
>
> > Oh, another know-it-all without any self-awareness.
>
> > > and it's difficult dealing with a bigot,
>
> > ..but I'll try to be polite.
>
> > > but lets limit our
> > > sources to the one you're happy with. Why don't you go
> > > look up the following references and get back to me.
>
> > �Jesus's pedigree
>
> > > Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
> > > David to Jesus
>
> > Wrong:
>
> > (New International Version)
>
> > 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
> > fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to
> > the Christ.[b]"
>
> > Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.
>
> > > Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
> > > the same names!)
>
> > Hmm, 42 = 42.
>
> > Next!
>
> > > Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through
> > > Davd's son,
>
> > Not in Matt 1:16.
>
> > Matt 1:16 (NIV)
>
> > "16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
> > Jesus, who is called Christ."
>
> > Next!
>
> > Solomon Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan
>
> > Actual contents of Luke 3:23:
>
> > �23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
> > He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
>
> > Next!
>
> > > Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was
> > > Jesus' father eleswhere they both state that Joseph was
> > > Jesus's father
>
> > You need to update your knowlege of Christian theology. Christian theology
> > states that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly Man. �Thus there is no
> > inconsistency, since Jesus was therefore both wholly the son of Joseph and
> > the son of God in the identity of the Holy Spirit.
>
> > Next!
>
> > > Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph
> > > Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary
> > > Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had
> > > concieved.
> > > Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception
>
> > ????? Just fragments, nothing to comment on.
>
> > > Holy Spirit inconsistancies
> > > Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of
> > > John the Baptist John 3:22-24 Before it
> > > Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from
> > > before his birth, six months before the birth of Jesus
> > > Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer,
> > > presumably at any time but wait!!
> > > John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world
> > > until after Jesus has departed.
>
> > Actually it says:
>
> > John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
> > later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
> > had not yet been glorified.
>
> > The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
> > since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
> > ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.
>
> > Next!
>
> > > John 16:7 As above
>
> > Next!
>
> > > Acts 1:3-5 As above
>
> > Next!
>
> > > There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.
>
> > Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious..
>
> > > The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to
> > > us as the Word of God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It
> > > appears God may be in need of a proof-reader
>
> > It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> > ever known!
>
> This is predcious, we have Arny presenting Biblical floobydust events,
> Biblical floobydust concepts like the Holy Sprit and Biblical flooby
> dust people
> as actually being "real"
>
> Prove that Jesus existed, even as a man
> Prove that Luke existed
> Priove that Mathew existed
> Prove that there exists such a thing as the Holy Spirit
> Prove that abraham existed
> Prove that David existed
> Prove that Solomon existed
> 'Priove that Nathan existed
> Prove that Mary existed
> Prove that Joseph existed
> Prove that there was an exile form Babylon
> Prove that Jacob existed
> Proive that Jesus was crucified
> Prove that angels exist
> Prove that angels speak to people
> Prove that God exists.
>
> And much thanks to Iain for skilllfully
> eliciting from Arny all of these
> floobydust arguments- Hide quoted text -
>

There is some evidence of historical Jesus. The funny thing was that
he was a carpenter who was commissioned to build crosses for the
Romans. That, of course, is explored in "The Last Temptation of
Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis, who noted the vast differences between
the Biblical legend and the actual man who walked the earth.

By the way, if this was a court case and Arny was the lawyer for the
defense, God would fire him and ask for someone more competent...like
a child fresh out of Sunday School. How disgusting it is to watch a
horrible, unenlightened sinner like Arny try to pass himself off as a
religious expert.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


Arny, when you renamed the header, you made a spelling error
it should read "Christian Foology"
not "Christian Thology"

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 3:52�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> ever known!

This from the guy who described himself as a happy man a few days
ago. Now we get it.

LOL!

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 09:47, Boon > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 4:59 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > > > You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny
>
> > > Oh, another know-it-all without any self-awareness.
>
> > > > and it's difficult dealing with a bigot,
>
> > > ..but I'll try to be polite.
>
> > > > but lets limit our
> > > > sources to the one you're happy with. Why don't you go
> > > > look up the following references and get back to me.
>
> > > Jesus's pedigree
>
> > > > Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
> > > > David to Jesus
>
> > > Wrong:
>
> > > (New International Version)
>
> > > 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
> > > fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to
> > > the Christ.[b]"
>
> > > Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.
>
> > > > Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
> > > > the same names!)
>
> > > Hmm, 42 = 42.
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through
> > > > Davd's son,
>
> > > Not in Matt 1:16.
>
> > > Matt 1:16 (NIV)
>
> > > "16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
> > > Jesus, who is called Christ."
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > Solomon Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan
>
> > > Actual contents of Luke 3:23:
>
> > > 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
> > > He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was
> > > > Jesus' father eleswhere they both state that Joseph was
> > > > Jesus's father
>
> > > You need to update your knowlege of Christian theology. Christian theology
> > > states that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly Man. Thus there is no
> > > inconsistency, since Jesus was therefore both wholly the son of Joseph and
> > > the son of God in the identity of the Holy Spirit.
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph
> > > > Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary
> > > > Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had
> > > > concieved.
> > > > Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception
>
> > > ????? Just fragments, nothing to comment on.
>
> > > > Holy Spirit inconsistancies
> > > > Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of
> > > > John the Baptist John 3:22-24 Before it
> > > > Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from
> > > > before his birth, six months before the birth of Jesus
> > > > Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer,
> > > > presumably at any time but wait!!
> > > > John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world
> > > > until after Jesus has departed.
>
> > > Actually it says:
>
> > > John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
> > > later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
> > > had not yet been glorified.
>
> > > The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
> > > since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
> > > ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > John 16:7 As above
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > Acts 1:3-5 As above
>
> > > Next!
>
> > > > There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.
>
> > > Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious.
>
> > > > The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to
> > > > us as the Word of God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It
> > > > appears God may be in need of a proof-reader
>
> > > It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> > > ever known!
>
> > This is predcious, we have Arny presenting Biblical floobydust events,
> > Biblical floobydust concepts like the Holy Sprit and Biblical flooby
> > dust people
> > as actually being "real"
>
> > Prove that Jesus existed, even as a man
> > Prove that Luke existed
> > Priove that Mathew existed
> > Prove that there exists such a thing as the Holy Spirit
> > Prove that abraham existed
> > Prove that David existed
> > Prove that Solomon existed
> > 'Priove that Nathan existed
> > Prove that Mary existed
> > Prove that Joseph existed
> > Prove that there was an exile form Babylon
> > Prove that Jacob existed
> > Proive that Jesus was crucified
> > Prove that angels exist
> > Prove that angels speak to people
> > Prove that God exists.
>
> > And much thanks to Iain for skilllfully
> > eliciting from Arny all of these
> > floobydust arguments- Hide quoted text -
>
> There is some evidence of historical Jesus. The funny thing was that
> he was a carpenter who was commissioned to build crosses for the
> Romans. That, of course, is explored in "The Last Temptation of
> Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis, who noted the vast differences between
> the Biblical legend and the actual man who walked the earth.
>
> By the way, if this was a court case and Arny was the lawyer for the
> defense, God would fire him and ask for someone more competent...like
> a child fresh out of Sunday School. *How disgusting it is to watch a
> horrible, unenlightened sinner like Arny try to pass himself off as a
> religious expert.
>
> Boon-

I can see why Arny is so smitten with Jesus
If Jesus were alive twenty five years ago, he would have
commissioned by Chrysler to build
ashtrays for Omnis.
And in todays world, Arny aches to
be nailed to the cross by the posse of Middius (note the
Roman spelling)

[Boon]

Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
discrepancy. I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:

Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
children named Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. God banishes Cain
from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
like Caine in "Kung Fu." Cain complains that everyone who sees him
will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.

The question is...who is "everyone"? At this point, there are only
three people on the face of the earth. Who are all these indigenous
people Cain might encounter?

The stock answer is often something like "Many theologians believe
that after the Garden of Eden, God started placing people all over the
earth." Unfortunately, the Bible does not state this. Seems like
kind of an important detail to forget.

Other clergymen have actually said, "You need to have faith, and God
has provided these mysteries to test it." WTF? Is that like the
whole dinosaur thing? Stupid people will go a long way to avoid
admitting they were wrong. In that respect, Arny is a good Christian.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 6:55�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 20 Noi, 09:47, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 4:59 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
> > >
>
> > > > > You are clearly old enough to know everything Arny
>
> > > > Oh, another know-it-all without any self-awareness.
>
> > > > > and it's difficult dealing with a bigot,
>
> > > > ..but I'll try to be polite.
>
> > > > > but lets limit our
> > > > > sources to the one you're happy with. Why don't you go
> > > > > look up the following references and get back to me.
>
> > > > Jesus's pedigree
>
> > > > > Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
> > > > > David to Jesus
>
> > > > Wrong:
>
> > > > (New International Version)
>
> > > > 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
> > > > fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to
> > > > the Christ.[b]"
>
> > > > Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.
>
> > > > > Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
> > > > > the same names!)
>
> > > > Hmm, 42 = 42.
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > Matthew 1:16 The lineage of Jesus is traced through
> > > > > Davd's son,
>
> > > > Not in Matt 1:16.
>
> > > > Matt 1:16 (NIV)
>
> > > > "16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born
> > > > Jesus, who is called Christ."
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > Solomon Luke 3:23 The lineage is traced through David's son Nathan
>
> > > > Actual contents of Luke 3:23:
>
> > > > 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
> > > > He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > Luke and Matthew both state that the Holy Ghost was
> > > > > Jesus' father eleswhere they both state that Joseph was
> > > > > Jesus's father
>
> > > > You need to update your knowlege of Christian theology. Christian theology
> > > > states that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly Man. Thus there is no
> > > > inconsistency, since Jesus was therefore both wholly the son of Joseph and
> > > > the son of God in the identity of the Holy Spirit.
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph
> > > > > Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary
> > > > > Matthew 1:18-21 The annunciation occurred after Mary had
> > > > > concieved.
> > > > > Luke 1:27-32 It occurred before conception
>
> > > > ????? Just fragments, nothing to comment on.
>
> > > > > Holy Spirit inconsistancies
> > > > > Mark 1:14 Jesus began his ministry after the arrest of
> > > > > John the Baptist John 3:22-24 Before it
> > > > > Luke 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from
> > > > > before his birth, six months before the birth of Jesus
> > > > > Luke 11:13 The Holy Spirit is obtained by prayer,
> > > > > presumably at any time but wait!!
> > > > > John 7:39 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world
> > > > > until after Jesus has departed.
>
> > > > Actually it says:
>
> > > > John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were
> > > > later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus
> > > > had not yet been glorified.
>
> > > > The proper interpretation is that while the Holy Spirit had been helping men
> > > > since early in the Old Testiment, he did not start his post-crucifixion
> > > > ministry with the Apostles until Penticost.
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > John 16:7 As above
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > Acts 1:3-5 As above
>
> > > > Next!
>
> > > > > There is lots more Arny when you get through that lot.
>
> > > > Your ignorance of Christianity and Christian theology is rather obvious.
>
> > > > > The problem with all of this, is that it is being fed to
> > > > > us as the Word of God, dispensed by The Holy Spirit. It
> > > > > appears God may be in need of a proof-reader
>
> > > > It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> > > > ever known!
>
> > > This is predcious, we have Arny presenting Biblical floobydust events,
> > > Biblical floobydust concepts like the Holy Sprit and Biblical flooby
> > > dust people
> > > as actually being "real"
>
> > > Prove that Jesus existed, even as a man
> > > Prove that Luke existed
> > > Priove that Mathew existed
> > > Prove that there exists such a thing as the Holy Spirit
> > > Prove that abraham existed
> > > Prove that David existed
> > > Prove that Solomon existed
> > > 'Priove that Nathan existed
> > > Prove that Mary existed
> > > Prove that Joseph existed
> > > Prove that there was an exile form Babylon
> > > Prove that Jacob existed
> > > Proive that Jesus was crucified
> > > Prove that angels exist
> > > Prove that angels speak to people
> > > Prove that God exists.
>
> > > And much thanks to Iain for skilllfully
> > > eliciting from Arny all of these
> > > floobydust arguments- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There is some evidence of historical Jesus. The funny thing was that
> > he was a carpenter who was commissioned to build crosses for the
> > Romans. That, of course, is explored in "The Last Temptation of
> > Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis, who noted the vast differences between
> > the Biblical legend and the actual man who walked the earth.
>
> > By the way, if this was a court case and Arny was the lawyer for the
> > defense, God would fire him and ask for someone more competent...like
> > a child fresh out of Sunday School. �How disgusting it is to watch a
> > horrible, unenlightened sinner like Arny try to pass himself off as a
> > religious expert.
>
> > Boon-
>
> I can see why Arny is so smitten with Jesus
> If Jesus were alive twenty five years ago,

Wait, hold on...Jesus was alive 25 years ago. Jesus Lives, Art!
Didn't you know?

Boon

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Boon" > wrote in message
...

>There is some evidence of historical Jesus.

Agreed. There i¨s more tat evidence.
There is historical fact

Those of us who had the (mis)fortune to read
Latin and in particular Roman history, as a part
of the education process, will be aquainted with
Jesus, who was regarded by the Romas at that
time as little more than a political agitator.
At his crucifixion, he was mockingly given the
title "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm"
(Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews) by
Pontius Pilate, who was Roman governor of
Judea from 26 to 36AD, during the reign of
the Emperor Tiberius.

>How disgusting it is to watch a
>horrible, unenlightened sinner like Arny try to pass himself off as a
>religious expert.

Agreed :-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
> Arny, when you renamed the header, you made a spelling error
> it should read "Christian Foology"
> not "Christian Thology"


Your education is sadly lacking :-)

Arny is of course refering to the gread god Thol,
to whom he prays for cheap microphones
and inexpensive Baptist tambourine repairs.

Iain

[TT]

"Boon" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> discrepancy. I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> children named Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. God banishes Cain
> from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> like Caine in "Kung Fu." Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> The question is...who is "everyone"? At this point, there are only
> three people on the face of the earth. Who are all these indigenous
> people Cain might encounter?
>


Where do you think rabbits got the idea from about breeding ;-)

Cheers TT

[TT]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
.fi...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Arny, when you renamed the header, you made a spelling error
>> it should read "Christian Foology"
>> not "Christian Thology"
>
>
> Your education is sadly lacking :-)
>
> Arny is of course refering to the gread god Thol,
> to whom he prays for cheap microphones
> and inexpensive Baptist tambourine repairs.
>
> Iain
Thol?? Isn't that the brother of the Norse God Thor?

Cheers TT

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 7:17�am, "TT" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> > I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> > discrepancy. �I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> > failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> > Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> > children named Cain and Abel. �Cain kills Abel. �God banishes Cain
> > from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> > like Caine in "Kung Fu." �Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> > will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> > The question is...who is "everyone"? �At this point, there are only
> > three people on the face of the earth. �Who are all these indigenous
> > people Cain might encounter?
>
> Where do you think rabbits got the idea from about breeding ;-)

Well, I've heard the explanation that Adam and Eve had a ton of
children, and that Cain was worried about his little brothers and
sisters coming to avenge their brother's death. In other words, God
just started this whole "Earth" thing, there were only a handful of
people on the planet, and already they were planning vendettas and
engaging in fratricide. You'd think that if God was wise and full of
love, he wouldn't have started off with this band of violent assholes.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 5:52*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> It appears that if ignorance is bliss, you're one of he happiest people I've
> ever known!

Educate me, GOIA. Finish the sentence in the subject line.

For extra credit, try this one:

The biggest reward for being a good Christian is...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 9:07*am, Boon > wrote:

> Wait, hold on...Jesus was alive 25 years ago. *Jesus Lives, Art!
> Didn't you know?

He's still alive. I just saw him at a Wild game. He was sitting there
with Elvis.

Both, unfortunately, had beer and popcorn dumped on them because they
were cheering for the Vancouver Canucks. Hockey fans are a tough
group.

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 9:00�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 9:07�am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > Wait, hold on...Jesus was alive 25 years ago. �Jesus Lives, Art!
> > Didn't you know?
>
> He's still alive. I just saw him at a Wild game. He was sitting there
> with Elvis.
>
> Both, unfortunately, had beer and popcorn dumped on them because they
> were cheering for the Vancouver Canucks. Hockey fans are a tough
> group.

No kidding. The only way they respond to "Jesus Saves" is if he's the
goalie.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> discrepancy. I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> children named Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. God banishes Cain
> from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> like Caine in "Kung Fu." Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> The question is...who is "everyone"? At this point, there are only
> three people on the face of the earth. Who are all these indigenous
> people Cain might encounter?

The second part of the same question: the Booble also says Cain and Abel got
married and procreated. Whom did they marry?

> The stock answer is often something like "Many theologians believe
> that after the Garden of Eden, God started placing people all over the
> earth." Unfortunately, the Bible does not state this. Seems like
> kind of an important detail to forget.
>
> Other clergymen have actually said, "You need to have faith, and God
> has provided these mysteries to test it." WTF? Is that like the
> whole dinosaur thing? Stupid people will go a long way to avoid
> admitting they were wrong. In that respect, Arny is a good Christian.

Arnii was raised on the King Scat Bible.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 20, 12:37*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Boon said:

> > The question is...who is "everyone"? *At this point, there are only
> > three people on the face of the earth. *Who are all these indigenous
> > people Cain might encounter?
>
> The second part of the same question: the Booble also says Cain and Abel got
> married and procreated. Whom did they marry?

Hint: they were from Alabama.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > The question is...who is "everyone"? *At this point, there are only
> > > three people on the face of the earth. *Who are all these indigenous
> > > people Cain might encounter?
> >
> > The second part of the same question: the Booble also says Cain and Abel got
> > married and procreated. Whom did they marry?
>
> Hint: they were from Alabama.

They should go on Jerry Springer.

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 10:41�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 12:37�pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Boon said:
> > > The question is...who is "everyone"? �At this point, there are only
> > > three people on the face of the earth. �Who are all these indigenous
> > > people Cain might encounter?
>
> > The second part of the same question: the Booble also says Cain and Abel got
> > married and procreated. Whom did they marry?
>
> Hint: they were from Alabama.

Or Michigan.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 10:16, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Arny, when you renamed the header, you made a spelling error
> > it should read "Christian Foology"
> > not "Christian Thology"
>
> Your education is sadly lacking :-)
>
> Arny is of course refering to the gread god Thol,
> to whom he prays for cheap microphones
> and inexpensive Baptist tambourine repairs.
>
>

No, I think he worships this Fool, who is trying to gouge out his own
eyes

http://www.winexpert.com/~ASSETS/IMG/upload/The%20Fool.jpg

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 10:58, Boon > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 7:17 am, "TT" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> > > I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> > > discrepancy. I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> > > failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> > > Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> > > children named Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. God banishes Cain
> > > from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> > > like Caine in "Kung Fu." Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> > > will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> > > The question is...who is "everyone"? At this point, there are only
> > > three people on the face of the earth. Who are all these indigenous
> > > people Cain might encounter?
>
> > Where do you think rabbits got the idea from about breeding ;-)
>
> Well, I've heard the explanation that Adam and Eve had a ton of
> children, and that Cain was worried about his little brothers and
> sisters coming to avenge their brother's death. *In other words, God
> just started this whole "Earth" thing, there were only a handful of
> people on the planet, and already they were planning vendettas and
> engaging in fratricide. *You'd think that if God was wise and full of
> love, he wouldn't have started off with this band of violent assholes.
>
> Boon-


after all, man is in God's image
what else could you expect.

[Boon]

On Nov 20, 12:25�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 20 Noi, 10:58, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 7:17 am, "TT" > wrote:
>
> > > "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> > > > I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> > > > discrepancy. I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> > > > failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> > > > Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> > > > children named Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. God banishes Cain
> > > > from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> > > > like Caine in "Kung Fu." Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> > > > will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> > > > The question is...who is "everyone"? At this point, there are only
> > > > three people on the face of the earth. Who are all these indigenous
> > > > people Cain might encounter?
>
> > > Where do you think rabbits got the idea from about breeding ;-)
>
> > Well, I've heard the explanation that Adam and Eve had a ton of
> > children, and that Cain was worried about his little brothers and
> > sisters coming to avenge their brother's death. �In other words, God
> > just started this whole "Earth" thing, there were only a handful of
> > people on the planet, and already they were planning vendettas and
> > engaging in fratricide. �You'd think that if God was wise and full of
> > love, he wouldn't have started off with this band of violent assholes.
>
> > Boon-
>
> after �all, man is in God's image
> what else could you expect.-

I heard that after he had a kid he mellowed out a bit.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 15:46, Boon > wrote:

> > after all, man is in God's image
> > what else could you expect.-
>
> I heard that after he had a kid he mellowed out a bit.
>
>

The kid's been out of the nest a few thousand years,
looks like the Man is having some sort of a mid life
crisis right now. Too preoccupied with a bimbo godess on each arm
and a Porsche in the driveway to care much about us anymore.

http://www.ci.killeen.tx.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2758&g2_serialNumber=2

[TT]

"Boon" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 7:17?am, "TT" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Here's a better example of one of the inconsistencies of the Bible.
> > I'm sure Arny will find the right version to explain this
> > discrepancy. ?I've asked clergymen to explain this, and they've never
> > failed to supply a totally ludicrous, bull**** answer:
>
> > Adam and Eve were the first two people on the Earth. They had two
> > children named Cain and Abel. ?Cain kills Abel. ?God banishes Cain
> > from the Garden of Eden and tells him he has to walk the earth, just
> > like Caine in "Kung Fu." ?Cain complains that everyone who sees him
> > will want to kill him, so God puts a mark on him to protect him.
>
> > The question is...who is "everyone"? ?At this point, there are only
> > three people on the face of the earth. ?Who are all these indigenous
> > people Cain might encounter?
>
> Where do you think rabbits got the idea from about breeding ;-)

Well, I've heard the explanation that Adam and Eve had a ton of
children, and that Cain was worried about his little brothers and
sisters coming to avenge their brother's death. In other words, God
just started this whole "Earth" thing, there were only a handful of
people on the planet, and already they were planning vendettas and
engaging in fratricide. You'd think that if God was wise and full of
love, he wouldn't have started off with this band of violent assholes.

Boon

The other point to make here is there were *NO* rules. The 10 Optional
guides had not been issued yet and the only rule in existence was "Don't eat
the bloody apple". Nowhere *yet* was it said you couldn't go around and
kill people. Oh BTW don't forget why Eve was created. Remember Adam went
around the garden and "knew" (had sex with) all the animals first and had
the ****s on.

So we end up with the first guy is into bestiality (in God's image), gets a
tart that won't do what she's told (yeah like that's changed over the
millennia) and kids that want to kill each other. Sounds very much like Red
Necks to me or your average trailer park trash ;-)

Also don't forget this divine. omnipotent, omniscient being is a quite
violent arsehole himself. How many people did he deliberately kill because
they gave him the ****s. Well he totalled to whole population in Noah's
day, nuked Sodom and Gomorrah a bit later and help the Israelites murder
countless others.

Yep, an all round Mr. Nice. Oh and don't forget in the very end he brings
you back to life and throws you in lake of fire for good measure just in
case the first time around wasn't bad enough. Imagine some poor sod from
Noah's day waking up and going "Oh ****, drowning sucked but this burning
thing is a **** off". ;-)

Yep, I'm convinced, where do I sign up for my Tamborine lessons?

Cheers TT

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Noi, 17:07, "TT" > wrote:


>
> The other point to make here is there were *NO* rules. *The 10 Optional
> guides had not been issued yet and the only rule in existence was "Don't eat
> the bloody apple". *Nowhere *yet* was it said you couldn't go around and
> kill people. *Oh BTW don't forget why Eve was created. *Remember Adam went
> around the garden and "knew" (had sex with) all the animals first and had
> the ****s on.
>
> So we end up with the first guy is into bestiality (in God's image), gets a
> tart that won't do what she's told (yeah like that's changed over the
> millennia) and kids that want to kill each other. *Sounds very much like Red
> Necks to me or your average trailer park trash ;-)
>

Don't forget the kids having all that incest and
the chariot up on blocks. And the Jeusu pics
are all wrong, he wore a mullet.

[TT]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
On 20 Noi, 17:07, "TT" > wrote:


>
> The other point to make here is there were *NO* rules. The
> 10 Optional
> guides had not been issued yet and the only rule in
> existence was "Don't eat
> the bloody apple". Nowhere *yet* was it said you couldn't
> go around and
> kill people. Oh BTW don't forget why Eve was created.
> Remember Adam went
> around the garden and "knew" (had sex with) all the
> animals first and had
> the ****s on.
>
> So we end up with the first guy is into bestiality (in
> God's image), gets a
> tart that won't do what she's told (yeah like that's
> changed over the
> millennia) and kids that want to kill each other. Sounds
> very much like Red
> Necks to me or your average trailer park trash ;-)
>

Don't forget the kids having all that incest and
the chariot up on blocks. And the Jeusu pics
are all wrong, he wore a mullet.

Oh yes :-)) And to complete the picture nicely we need old
man Adam with his beer gut hanging over his loin cloth
crushing cans of Bud against his forehead as he rocks on the
front porch while Eve is out the back (heavily pregnant)
hanging out the washing with her hair up in curlers,
cigarette hanging dryly from the corner of her mouth and in
some pink furry slippers with rabbit ears on the top. Oh
and seeing through the faded, semi-transparent nightie you
can see written on her panties in large letters "God's
Gift".

Cheers TT

PS Anyone that has become sexually aroused by the above
descriptions I would prefer not to enter into any further
discussions with. That includes you to Arny ;-)

[roughplanet[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
.fi...

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...

On 20 Noi, 06:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Arny, when you renamed the header, you made a spelling error
>> it should read "Christian Foology"
>> not "Christian Thology"

> Your education is sadly lacking :-)
> Arny is of course refering to the gread god Thol,
> to whom he prays for cheap microphones
> and inexpensive Baptist tambourine repairs.
>
> Iain

Arny has an 'each way bet' by banging his tambourine with a copy of Darwin's
'Theory of Natural Selection' just in case:-).

ruff

[Ian Mitchell[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ian Mitchell" > wrote in message
>
>


>> Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from
>> David to Jesus
>
> Wrong:
>
> (New International Version)
>
> 17 "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
> fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile
> to the Christ.[b]"

Oh dear, out of your own mouth: From DAVID to JESUS is 14 + 14 = 28

I know the math is difficult Arny, but try to keep up.

>
> Anybody who can add will add 14+14+14 and get 42.

See above (this really is too easy)

>
>> Luke 3:23-31 There were forty-two generations (not even
>> the same names!)
>
> Hmm, 42 = 42.

Hmm 42 =28 according to Arny

There followed a whole lot of Arny babble that deserves comment, but the
truth is I'm just too damned disinterested at this point. I enjoy an
intellectual gun-fight as much as the next guy, but when your opponent keeps
shooting himself in the foot, it's difficult to take pleasure from it. May
your God go with you Arny (credit:Dave Allen)