Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Nov 21, 2020 12:42:59 GMT -5
You so bad
you know so much
why don't you answer your own challenges
you who can produce not a single primary document
and completely impotent at falsifying my research.
At this point you're just trolling and you know it.
of Acts 8. That is a strawman and your "gift card rewards" follow that strawman.
It is not up to other people to show what you posted is not Act 8. It is your job.
You posted the fragment, therefore you, the master of research, should at a minimum,
have included details about its provenance. Why should people thank you for
an incomplete job, master "researcher"?
Few doubt they are old fragments, but proper sourcing has not even been given as on the
text, showing another documentation lapse. Oldest from Where? What archive or museum,
or published work? What is the dating of the manuscript? And what are the critical
translations of the text in the manuscripts? Here again, the call for tight documentation
has not been heeded by the same people calling for documentation. The above should
have been easy, since you said you examined the "primary Greek" and "critical translations."
But again and again, you can't produce these basics, which would have avoided much
of the thread debate.
First you fail to properly source your main line of evidence. Then you announced
earlier than you were "withholding" details on your own line of evidence. Now you
want people to do the work you should have done in the first place.
But let's see if others can provide the missing info. Thread readers, go ahead and post
or disprove those images, but be sure to include details on provenance and sourcing, and
the English translation. One that is done, then examining how they support the claim of
the Cushite's non-existence can be dealt with in detail..
you know so much
why don't you answer your own challenges
you who can produce not a single primary document
and completely impotent at falsifying my research.
At this point you're just trolling and you know it.
All your diversionary bluff still won't work. The issue at hand is not posting a fragment
of Acts 8. That is a strawman and your "gift card rewards" follow that strawman.
It is not up to other people to show what you posted is not Act 8. It is your job.
You posted the fragment, therefore you, the master of research, should at a minimum,
have included details about its provenance. Why should people thank you for
an incomplete job, master "researcher"?
Few doubt they are old fragments, but proper sourcing has not even been given as on the
text, showing another documentation lapse. Oldest from Where? What archive or museum,
or published work? What is the dating of the manuscript? And what are the critical
translations of the text in the manuscripts? Here again, the call for tight documentation
has not been heeded by the same people calling for documentation. The above should
have been easy, since you said you examined the "primary Greek" and "critical translations."
But again and again, you can't produce these basics, which would have avoided much
of the thread debate.
First you fail to properly source your main line of evidence. Then you announced
earlier than you were "withholding" details on your own line of evidence. Now you
want people to do the work you should have done in the first place.
But let's see if others can provide the missing info. Thread readers, go ahead and post
or disprove those images, but be sure to include details on provenance and sourcing, and
the English translation. One that is done, then examining how they support the claim of
the Cushite's non-existence can be dealt with in detail..