Riverwind

I know enough about computers and textual critics to know that Bart Ehrman wasn't messing with your website.

I was also rather amused that you had to move your website "offshore". Huh...wha???

Nazaroo

Problem is, you still don't know enough about computers to prevent you from making an ass of yourself.

jgibson000

Yep. That's why I've been posting what I've been posting, and that's why nothing of what I've posted in response to your claims has been directed to your claims --to get "even "with someone even you proclaimed a d**khead.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's because I don't like to see nonsense claimed as scholarship, could it now.

Thanks. And for a guy who hates having it revealed that he does not possess the knowledge he lays claim to, and who does not want to admit that he hasn't the evidence for his claims he boats he has, you are running true to form.

But before you issue any further compliments, you might first want to acquaint yourself with the logical fallacy that holds that pointing out what someone's motive might be for saying something has any bearing upon, let alone falsifies, as you seem to think it does, the truth of what he/she says.

JG

jgibson000

So .. how do you know for certain, as you have claimed that you do, that it was "Ehrman's people" who did this?

Why? Do I need to contact the people generating phishing schemes when I complain about them to the service provider they use?

In any case, I note again that you have failed again to provide a scintilla of evidence for your claim that you know for a fact that, prior to my alerting him to it this evening, Bart had read your "Ehrman is a f***ing liar" "work" several times over.

May we finally have this evidence please?

JG

RED DAVE

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for evidence of his assertion that Stalin was a Jew (along with most of the Polish people).

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...in#post4320883


RED DAVE

jgibson000

I don't see that knowing about computers prevents this in any way, especially in the light of your own example. I mean, you apparently know about them, but look what you've still been doing to yourself in this thread.

Be that as it may, may I please have your evidence that shows the truth of your claim that prior to this evening Bart had read, let alone read more than once, your "Ehrman is a *f***ing liar" piece?

JG

douglas

No. For someone who previously accused me of lieing, you're doing a dang good job of it yourself.

I claimed there were many blank "spaces" in Vaticanus, not columns.

The problem is the picture you showed didn't show an empty column at all in Sinaiticus, but an empty space. And your quote from the Snapp guy says that Ehrman overlooked "suggestive blank spaces."

My apologies for the misunderstanding, but clarity of thought is not one of your strengths, Nazaroo.