Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[reformed1689]

QUOTE="David Taylor, post: 674494, member: 8398"

Actually I have. I agreed that it is translated correctly.

BUT YOU HAVE NOT STATED WHY YOU BELIEVE IT IS TRUE. All you have done is agreed with someone else's opinion and they have not presented why they believe it is true.

Again, how have I engaged in ad hominem against you? I simply asked that you show how it has been translated incorrectly.

AND PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU FOR WHAT YOU REALLY ARE.

Talking about Scripture is gutter trash?

AND HOW YOU TWIST WORDS TO SUIT YOUR OWN PURPOSES.

Ah, I understand now. You mistake translation for interpretation. Those are not the same thing.

BEFORE YOU CAN BEGIN TO TRANSLATE ONE LANGUAGE INTO ANOTHER LANGUAGE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE INTENT OF THE PASSAGE YOU ARE WANTING TO TRANSLATE AND THAT REQUIRES INTERPRETATION. INTERPRETATION HAPPENS BEFORE THE TRANSLATION PROCESS CAN BEGIN.

For good transmission of a message from one language to another, it requires that the same message/intent of the original source text is transmitted to the reader of the translated text. Sadly, the message content is not always transmitted correctly in this process. Why you even have difficulties in understanding the message content of English post. Can I rest my case now, or do you want to continue your AD HOMINEM fallacy arguments.

First, haven't made ad hominem. Second, why do you think it is incorrectly translated?

 

[Jay Ross]

First, haven't made ad hominem. Second, why do you think it is incorrectly translated?

I believe that I have already answered that question with my previous remarks.

 

[ReChoired]

My wife can converse in 7 different languages, and I make attempts in three. And both of us have learned that to try and "literally" translate any of them directly into English is not desirous. Not at all!
Did you know that even in English, we have so many meanings for words, that many of us can't keep up with our own language?
For instance:
"Run" has at least 645 meanings... and that is just in the verb form, alone.
"Go" has 368 meanings.
"Set" has 430.
"Take", 343.
"Stand", 334.
"Get", 289.
"Turn", 288.
"Put", 268.
"Fall", 264.
"Strike", 250
And we honestly think we can just flip a page in "Strong's", snatch a number written there, and be oh so knowledgeable of what was supposedly said in a certain verse. LOL

Things like concordances, lexicon's, dictionaries, encyclopedia's of men, are only so useful, which is why they may be properly used to 'find' a word in scripture, but not to 'define' those words absolutely, as God defines God in scripture, line upon line (Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20; Isaiah 28:10,13; Luke 24:32,45; Daniel 2:28, etc).

For instance, in scripture, to be "upright", as in this verse, means to have been made to live without sin, perfectly:

Ecc_7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.​

This we may see, in how God uses the word elsewhere:

2Sa_22:24 I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.

Job_1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job_1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job_2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Job_8:6 If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.

Job_17:8 Upright men shall be astonied at this, and the innocent shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.

Psa_11:7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.

Psa_18:23 I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.

Psa_19:13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Psa_20:8 They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright. (this is a contrasting verse, of that fallen down and bowed down and heavy laden with sin, as opposed to getting up, standing upright with no more load of sin)

Psa_37:37 Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.

etc.
​

Yet, even so, we shall find, in the languages of the world, especially English, that God was shaping them through His word, in using persons like William Tyndale, Webster, and the AV translators, etc.

While God was shaping them for good, the devil yet seeks to break down definitions, and blur lines, and redefine and to minimize, or add unto them.

 

[mjrhealth]

Not even nice words or good prose, just a Scripture-less vacuum like in your head. What for you for the question, <Are Doctrines affected by translation of Scripture>, is enough, is of no consequence, of no bearing, and useless disinformation.

Coming from you thats a blessing, Ill take it that way. Now you can go back to defending your religion with teh religious.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Can I rest my case now, or do you want to continue your AD HOMINEM fallacy arguments.

Shucks, outjie, what's the matter with you? Little proud Bigfoot in the land of the Mongoose. Or is it Mongeese?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

as God defines God in scripture, line upon line (.. Isaiah 28:10,13 ..).

Bigger insult to God I have not come across yet, comparing actually identifying Him with drunken Jewish priests, <<(.. Isaiah 28:10,13 ..)>>.

 

[Taken]

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions? <---OP

Answer ~ Yes

NIV ~ Intent ~ (Philosophy)
(Source thenivbible.com)

Philosophy ~ (paraphrased)
Claim:
Ancient men could read the Scripture in their own language.
Claim;
God gave men a clear "UNDERSTANDING" of Scripture "IN" Scripture.
Claim;
Ancient men had a clear "UNDERSTANDING" of Scripture "IN" Scripture, "IN" theiir native language.
Claim;
Modern writers intent is to give English Speakers/Readers the same advantage of Reading Scripture and UNDERSTANDING the Scripture in their Own native language.

1 Chr 22:12 (NIV)
May the Lord give you discretion and understanding when he puts you in command over Israel, so that you may keep the law of the Lord your God.

Compared TO:

1 Chr 22:12 (KJV)
[12] Only the LORD give thee wisdom and understanding, and give thee charge concerning Israel, that thou mayest keep the law of the LORD thy God.

MAY the Lord give you understanding?
OR
ONLY the Lord gives you understanding?

The modern writers have become the interpreters of Scriptural "UNDERSTANDING" by and through "THEIR" Philosophy.

Scriptures ARE the WRITTEN "INTRODUCTION" TO "KNOWLEDGE".

Scripture DOES NOT TEACH, that SCRIPTURE IS the SOURCE of UNDERSTANDING the Scriptures.

Modern writers of the NIV, have a Philosophy, that IF THEY choose (for the reader), which Words to INCLUDE in their Version...THEY will HAVE ACCOMPLISHED, giving the Reader, the "UNDERSTANDING" of Scripture.

Col 2: (NIV)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.

Col 2: (KJV)
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Sam 2 (KJV)
[3] ...the LORD is a God of knowledge...

1 Sam 2 (NIV)
[3]...the Lord is a God who knows...

Luke 24: (NIV)
45 Then he opened their mind so they could "understand" the Scriptures.

Luke 24
[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

WAIT...

..UH...Why Does God have to OPEN a MANS "UNDERSTANDING" of the (knowledge) of Scripture...
When it is the intent and PHILOSOPHY of modern writers of the NIV, To WRITE Scripture FOR UNDERSTANDING to BE "GAINED" BY READING the SCRIPTURES?

QUOTE...(source; thenivbible.com)
"When the books of the Bible were first written, they spoke clearly to people in their heart language. There was no gap between hearing God’s Word and understanding it. The translation philosophy of the New International Version (NIV) is to recreate this experience for you in contemporary English."

Intent...?
"Heart language"... but they translate "opening of the mind"?
"No gap between hearing God's Word and "Understanding" it?

Yet Scripture teaches THERE IS A GAP...
First one hears the Knowledge...
Chooses to Believe the Knowledge ...OR NOT
And it is one who Believes...that becomes the recipient of ... By and Through Being Given the Understanding "OF" Gods Understanding,
By God Himself...
NOT by philosophies of men!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

My wife can converse in 7 different languages, and I make attempts in three.

Most difficult about a language is to be able to speak it, while must be about everybody of 7 billion people are fluent in at least one, their own language. Knowledge of a language not at all means one can speak it or understand it spoken.

Solid and useful acquaintance with the Biblical languages must be obtained through long and arduous years of study into the hidden and silent essentials of these languages while speaking them or any one of them, remains ever so impossible.

Therefore, IMHO, Etymology, the study of the history and origin of words at the hand of incidence and change in form and meaning with time, is the single most important, most indispensable, but currently most neglected and disregarded, elemental aspect needed in real knowledge of New Testament Greek for a better understanding of Scripture and the Gospel of Scripture. Real science lacks pitiably in modern Biblical hermeneutic and exegesis, preaching and writing.

 

[bbyrd009]

ge still got it bad huh, this is that and that is this lol, and i am better than any ol scientist

Lets compare one verse, 1 John 4:3:

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

RSV - and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

ASV and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.

KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We see here in 1 John 4:3 that the NIV takes out the whole point in the text, "NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--yet another swipe at the divinity of Christ." https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

kinda on the fly here, someone else may have pointed this out already?
1 John 4:3 Lexicon: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

there is no "in the flesh" in the original?

 

[Willie T]

I really get into all the discussion of "The Antichrist" in the Bible….. especially in Revelation. LOL

 

[bbyrd009]

I really get into all the discussion of "The Antichrist" in the Bible….. especially in Revelation. LOL

especially since he aint even in There huh
Bible Search: antichrist

 

[Willie T]

especially since he aint even in There huh
Bible Search: antichrist

You got it! And, the four places it is mentioned (by the same writer), it is never a "he."

 

[bbyrd009]

You got it! And, the four places it is mentioned (by the same writer), it is never a "he."

yeh, we even personify cars huh lol

 

[Willie T]

The "Antichrist" is just one example of people wanting so badly for something to be, that they read it into every passage of the Bible they can possibly attempt to wedge it into.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You got it! And, the four places it is mentioned (by the same writer), it is never a "he."

Antichrist can be you or me if we are anti Christ Jesus and deny "HE JESUS CHRIST, IS COME IN THE FLESH" from the dead again. Very simple and for absolutely definite!

 

[Willie T]

Antichrist can be you or me if we are anti Christ Jesus and deny "HE JESUS CHRIST, IS COME IN THE FLESH" from the dead again. Very simple and for absolutely definite!

Yes, I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that spirits (the spirit of anti Christ) work through human beings. What I said was "THE" Antichrist is never portrayed in the Bible as a One-World Leader who rises to ultimate power.

 

[ReChoired]

Bigger insult to God I have not come across yet, comparing actually identifying Him with drunken Jewish priests, <<(.. Isaiah 28:10,13 ..)>>.

You obviously do not understand Isaiah 28, neither what I stated, and so here it is more plainly:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts. Isaiah 28:9​

For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: Isaiah 28:10​

God, has said that "precept upon precept, precept upon precept" and "line upon line, line upon line" "here a little [and] there a little" is they way one learns the Good Doctrine of the LORD. Beginning with the simple and soon "weaned from the milk" even unto "meat" as sayeth Paul. [1 Corinthians 3:1-2]

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isaiah 28:11​

To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear. Isaiah 28:12​

This is the way God would lead in His word, even the Holy Spirit Himself leads into all Truth from Light unto more glorious Light, but they refused to hear the Word spoken, they refused the way in which it was to be given. Therefore, because they have refused and rejected knowledge and wisdom of God in "precept upon precept" and "line upon line" they are then fallen "backward" and "broken" and "snared" and "taken".

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isaiah 28:13​

"...for in Verse 12, two sources are cited in various scriptures, just as it should be, "line upon line" and "here a little" and "there a little". In one place it is said "Here is rest, give rest to the weary" and in another it is said, "Here is repose". This is how the scriptures work, yet they would not listen to the instruction of the Lord, so they then "may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive."

Notice also that last line, it is also cited elsewhere:

And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Isaiah 8:15​

Context of that verse.

Isaiah, himself is using the very principle, in teaching "line upon line", from quoting from those two sources and using them together, for "precept [is to be] upon precept".

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. Isaiah 28:7​

For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean]. Isaiah 28:8​

QUESTION:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Isaiah 28:9a...​

ANSWER:

... [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts. Isaiah 28:9b​

For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: Isaiah 28:10​

So, who are they that are "weened from the milk" and "drawn from the breasts"? They who read the word of the Lord by His instruction, being "precept upon precept" and "line upon line", even "here a little" and "there a little". Going from the basics and surface to the deep and more spiritual wisdom of the Love of GOD.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isaiah 28:11​

And he has, even by converted gentiles, even in parables, and in dark sayings ["...I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Matthew 13:35;p; "I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:" Psalms 78:2 and also Psalms 49:4; "To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings." Proverbs 1:6; compare also to Daniel 8:23 and the "little horn" Papal position who understands "dark sentences", for they claim to understand the parables and to even teach them...]

To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear. Isaiah 28:12 [see also Isaiah 30:15]​

For GOD hath said in Exodus 16:23, "this...[is] the rest...", Exodus 23:12, 31:17, "refreshed", etc... [consider also Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 12:10, 25:19; Joshua 14:15, 23:1; 2 Samuel 7:1,11; 1 Chronicles 22:9; Isaiah 14:3; also Acts 3:19, etc.]

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isaiah 28:13​

The preceding verse declares that GOD hath shown them [the rebellious] how to receive rest, and refreshing, yet "they would not hear", even though the "word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept", etc. They have no excuse for their not knowing, they have no excuse for their not being able to find rest, for it was given in the Word, "precept upon precept", "line upon line". There is no excuse for rebellion and refusal to hear it. When they refuse "precept upon precept" and "line upon line", they will "go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared and taken", because they have refused the very counsel of God, and have refused His rest.

Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which [is] in Jerusalem. Isaiah 28:14

Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Isaiah 28:15​

It will be torn away, even as it was unto them in the 1st Advent.

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16

Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. Isaiah 28:17​

Another hail is coming... and under it, all lies shall be swept away.

"II. What method they took, in pursuance of this design. ...They took great pains with them, and with great prudence, teaching them as they needed it and were able to bear it (v. 10): Precept upon precept. It must be so, or (as some read) it has been so.They have been taught, as children are taught to read, by precept upon precept, and taught to write by line upon line, a little here and a little there, a little of one thing and a little of another, that the variety of instructions might be pleasing and inviting,—a little at one time and a little at another, that they might not have their memories overcharged,—a little from one prophet and a little from another, that every one might be pleased with his friend and him whom he admired. Note, For our instruction in the things of God it is requisite that we have precept upon precept and line upon line, that one precept and line should be followed, and so enforced by another; the precept of justice must be upon the precept of piety, and the precept of charity upon that of justice. Nay, it is necessary that the same precept and the same line should be often repeated and inculcated upon us, that we may the better understand them and the more easily recollect them when we have occasion for them. ..." [Matthew Henry Commentary; Isaiah 28] - Commentary on Isaiah 29 by Matthew Henry
​

God is not the drunkard. God is the one supplying the pure water, the pure milk, and explaining His method of instruction, which is "line upon line", but as it is written, "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7), which is why you continue to carry the egregiously erroneous doctrine that you do GE on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, inspite of the plethora of abundance of truth shown you from scripture on it, and thus you have to continually make your own private translation to suite your carnal doctrine.

 

[ReChoired]

ge still got it bad huh, this is that and that is this lol, and i am better than any ol scientist
kinda on the fly here, someone else may have pointed this out already?
1 John 4:3 Lexicon: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

there is no "in the flesh" in the original?

IF you would more properly read all of the responses, and not merely what pleases you, you would see that 1 John 4:3 was already addressed, in some detail:

Being an 'accurate' or 'faithful translation' of a corrupt text doesn't make the text itself, correct, does it? It is non-sequitur. The N/A and UBS texts (which constantly changes, N/A is on 28th edition now? (and the changes from 25-28 are tremendous) and UBS 5th now right? - Comparison NA28 - UBS5 :: academic-bible.com )

See the real deception of the NA28th edition - TEXTUAL WARFARE ! : Does NESTLE-ALAND 28th Edition of the Greek New Testament WEIGH the Evidence FAIRLY . . . in 1 JOHN 4:3 ?

What 'earliest MSS' are you referring to specifically, and what makes these accurate, and by what standard did you test?

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" is found in the following MSS:

"... K, L, 049, 0142
Cursives: MAJORITY
Vulg-ms
Syr: peshitta, harclean

It is also extant in 0245. ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The AV by Jack Moorman, page 147​

It is also in the letters of the so called "ECF":

For instance, Polycarp (mid. 2nd cent.), cites 1 John 4, as it basically is in the KJB at present:

"... "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;" 1 John 4:3 and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. ..." - Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)​

For instance, Tertullian (mid. 2nd to mid. 3rd cent.), cited 1 John 4, as it basically is in the KJB at present:

"... There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as "Antichrists" who "denied that Christ had come in the flesh," 1 John 4:3 ..." - Prescription against Heretics, Tertullian - CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)​

For instance, Cyprian of Carthage (mid. 3rd cent.), cites 1 John 4, as it basically is in the KJB at present:

"... Also Paul to the Galatians: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent His Son, horn of a woman. Also in the Epistle of John: Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. But whosoever denies that He has come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the spirit of Antichrist. ..." - Treatise 12, Second Book - CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 12, Second Book (Cyprian of Carthage)​

For instance, Augustine (mid 4th cent.), cites 1 John 4, at least twice, as it basically is in KJB at present:

"... 12. There remains then the test by which it is to be proved to be the Spirit of God. He has indeed set down a sign, and this, belike, difficult: let us see, however. We are to recur to that charity; it is that which teacheth us, because it is the unction. However, what saith he here? “Prove the spirits, whether they be from God: because many false prophets have gone out into this world.” Now there are all heretics and all schismatics. How then am I to prove the spirit? He goes on: “In this is known2337 the Spirit of God.” Wake up the ears of your heart. We were at a loss; we were saying, Who knows? who discerns? Behold, he is about to tell the sign. “Hereby is known the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the antichrist, of whom ye have heard that he should come; and even now already is he in this world.” 2338 ..." - Homily 6 on First John, Augustine - Philip Schaff: NPNF1-07. St. Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies - Christian Classics Ethereal Library see also: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 6 on First John (Augustine)

"... Surely he is antichrist who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. 1 John 4:3 ..." - On the Flesh of Christ, Augustine CHURCH FATHERS: On the Flesh of Christ (Tertullian)
​

For instance, Theodoret (mid. 5th cent.), cites 1 John 4, as it basically is in KJB at present:

"... hear the great John in his Catholic Epistle saying "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of Anti-Christ." ..." - Dialogue 1, Theodoret - CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue 1 (Theodoret)
​

Adam Clarke, states that it is in, "... in Origen, Cyril, Theodoret, Irenaeus, and others. ..." - Adam Clarke's commentary on 1 John 4:3

The information presented therein has not been refuted, nor even attempted to be rebutted.

 

[bbyrd009]

IF you would more properly read all of the responses, and not merely what pleases you, you would see that 1 John 4:3 was already addressed, in some detail:

"kinda on the fly here, someone else may have pointed this out already?"

addressed by you you mean right? srsly?

The information presented therein has not been refuted, nor even attempted to be rebutted.

bro the "information presented therein" does not address that "in the flesh" is not in the original, near as i can tell? even though tl;dr of course, would you like to comment or no

bc you do not want me to address that tripe ok, honest
id be using Scripture an everything k

 

[ReChoired]

... even though tl;dr of course ...

Yeah, that pretty much sums up your ability to respond to facts.