Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Metatron" channel.

@someonethatisachristian Good enough to get saved, but @ShinTwist does well to dive deeper into the Word.
5
I'd have enough trouble with ancient Greek which had no spaces between the words and no punctuation. Go back far enough and the direction alternates between left to right and right to left!
2
I believe that was "The Nine Million Names of God" by Arthur C. Clarke, in case anybody wants to look it up. (Or was it Billion?)
2
Absolutely. The US declared war on December 11, 1941. The turning point of Germany's eastern front, prior to which Germany was totally on the offensive was the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943). By the time the Battle of Stalingrad had even begun, the US and UK were already shipping aid in bulk to the Soviet Union, mostly food a first, but constantly trucks and fuel, shipped in by Anglo-American convoys fighting through the German attempt at blockade. The defenders of Stalingrad almost starved as it was, and would certainly have starved without that aid. By the time the USSR had turned to the offensive, The US had been supplying, and continued to supply, Sherman tanks in vast numbers to all the allies including the Soviet Union. The UK also supplied the USSR with some tanks. The US and the UK also supplied the Soviets with combat and logistics aircraft. 90% of the trucks supporting the Soviet offensive logistical effort were Studebaker trucks shipped in from US factories, and the bulk of the fuel was from the US as well. Without that aid the Soviet offensive would not have been possible logistically or materially. Shortly after the US declaration of war, the US sent ground forces to aid the British effort to push the Axis powers out of Northern Africa. In November of 1942, the US opened an African front of its own in Operation Torch. The Anglo-American offensive pushed the Axis out of Africa, and deprived them of their main source of oil. This began well before the end of the Stalingrad battle and the start of the Soviet offensive, and paved the way for the subsequent Anglo-American invasions of Sicily and Italy, which took Italy out of the war. This also caused Hitler to divert forces from his eastern to his southern front during the pivotal period. Moreover, any analysis of the USSRs contribution to the allied war effort is incomplete without factoring in their prior contribution to the Axis war effort. The first Soviet intervention in events was its joint operation with the Reich in the conquest of Poland, accompanied by the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Not only that, but the USSR was supporting the Reich with its propaganda and vast amounts of material aid shipped across Poland by rail. While the US was already becoming the Arsenal of Democracy by sending material aid to the UK prior to the declaration of war, the USSR was simultaneously becoming the Arsenal of Despotism by sending material aid to Hitler. The courage of the Soviet peoples in the latter part of the war was commendable, but a complete analysis of the net Soviet contribution to the war must take into account that the problem the USSR helped solve was largely a problem they helped create. The USSR didn't join the allies until they had to do so to survive, and they wouldn't have survived without allied help.
2
@GenericYoutubeGuy "the dimensions for the cubit feet of it mentioned in the Bible wasn’t a box." The dimensions only tell us the size of the box. A big box is still a box. The POINT is it wasn't a BOAT. A boat is a VEHICLE to get from point A to point B under control. It was a rectangular live-in flotation device.
2
@Andrea-di2ew "It has to be said that the most ancient preserved bibles are actually in greek, not in hebrew. They are older by many centuries, so it is not like, when reading the hebrew bible, we are actually reading the source in its original form (which has been lost to time)" There is significant nuance missing from this statement. First of all, using New Testament textual criticism as an exemplar, and comparing with the Septuagint and the Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic parts of the roughly first centure Dead Sea Scrolls, we have every reason to believe that the copying of sacred texts was careful and not as error-prone as ordinary scribal procedure. Second the Dead Sea Scrolls give us a SAMPLE of portions of the Tanakh in the original language which is NOT many centuries later as the oldest Masoritic scrolls are. Second, there is always some loss of meaning in translation. Loss is POSSIBLE in copying, with the best of intentions. Loss is INEVITABLE in translation, with the best of intentions. Due to it's antiquity and independence from extant Hebrew textual traditions, the Septuagint is IMPORTANT for textual criticism and etymology, but still not DISPOSITIVE.
2
Lang
1
Starring Ryan Reynolds as Pertinax
1
Genesis 2 is not an instance of the Tetragrammaton being spoken by people in the narrative as compared with the narrator. The Genesis 4 instance is not a direct quote, but it IS an account of a human invocation. The invocation spoken of in Gen 4 was prior to the writing of the book Genesis. So the Gen 4 is the first invocation of which there is a Biblical account.
1
There really is no time for such an "evolution" to have taken place. The time and death of Jesus is attested by friendly and hostile forces, and we have COPIES of the New Testament books close to the time of the authors and contemporaries of Jesus. Back to the first two centuries, less than two hundred years after the originals were written and incomplete books and fragments much closer to the time of their writing by Jesus' contemporaries. In the strictest sense of your question, the dating of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is the most direct answer to your question, but almost any NT (New Testament)book counts as a historical account of Jesus in his historical and religious context, because all were written by his contemporaries and refer to him. Here are a few of the oldest NT MSS (manuscripts). These manuscripts were dated by antiquity scholars by commonly recognized methods, such as analysis of character styles P67| contains Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28| MS date circa 200AD, approx. 130 years after the original was written| location: Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1 P66| John 1:1-6:11, 35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9| book originally written 70s AD; MS Date circa 200 AD; approx. 130 years after the original| location: Cologne, Geneva P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus)| Rom. 5:17-6:3, 5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1, 9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28| books written 50s - 70s AD; MSS date circa 200 AD, aprox 150 years after orig.| location: Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan Library P52| John 18:31-33, 37-38| book originally written circa AD 96; MS date circa AD 125; aprox 29 years after orig.| location: John Rylands Library, Manchester, England (I apologize for the paragraph format of this data, every time I try to post the info on a graph, either the proportionally spaced font misalligns the columns, or the comment section software removes all the whitespace and turns it into a total dogs breakfast. Given the platform, this is the best that I can do.) Continuing with New Testament historical documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles "There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus." This is not the Christian view, this is the view of SECULAR New Testament scholars. The above evidences, among others show that the New Testament itself, is a valid contemporary historical witness to the life and ministry of one Jesus of Nazareth. I don't say you didn't learn what you said, but you didn't learn it from a bona fide historian or antiquities schollar. Richard Carrier, for instance is nothing of the sort.
1
If one rules out Providence, of course.
1
@almanacofsleep The majority were never consulted, and would be severely punished for unsolicited advice.
1
@CosmoLav These have western characters for the same reason that Lord of the Rings has Hobbits. So it doesn't seem strange when the situation gets explained to the viewpoint character (and thus to the reader). Exposition comes naturally in the dialog instead of a narrator info dump that creates distance between the reader and the characters. You want them to spend a great deal of money on a movie that their main audience won't understand and Japanese won't consider reviewing and will never see. That is a bad business model and a waste of money and creative energy. You can dismiss the notion that Hollywood wants to promote Western culture. Believe me when I say Hollywood HATES Western culture. In fact, "cultural appropriation" is entirely a western "white left" concept. Let me guess, you're not Japanese.
1
ZoomerStasi The notion that an ethnicity is a conspiracy is absurd. You Jew haters help the socialists because you play into their narrative. The only effective lie the socialists have nowadays is accusing US of being YOU. If you did not exist, they could not win anything. They would have to invent you in order to have anything to say after their policies and ideology have been so totally discredited historically. In fact, every day in every way groypers support the same things the "cultural Marxists" support, from the centrality of "group identity" through the abolition of the civil rights enumerated in the Constitution (all of them, without exception) through segregation, to the opposition to the ideal/goal of limited government and freedom itself. You contradict yourselves. You say that it is the Jewish religion that prompts Jews to hostility and domination plots toward gentiles and Christians and that Zionism is part of the plot, then when you list subversive Jews in places of power you list atheist Jews whose family has never darkened the door of a synagogue, sometimes for generations, and who are more hostile to Israel than you are. You say the Jews are to be blamed because they killed Christ, then you say modern Jews are not descendants of the Old and New Testament Jews. You deny the historical Holocaust by way of trying to improve the image of Nazis, then call for a holocaust. If a holocaust is bad, why are you calling for one? If it is not bad, why do you spend so much energy trying to deny the 20th century European one? Not only are each of your claims unsupported and absurd in isolation, they don't even fit together into a consistent lie.
1
Yeah, the Hebrew grammatical equivalent of "tense" doesn't center on time.
1
"omnipotent this ability is paradoxal" Usually when called upon to defend this notion, the defender will CONSTRUCT a contradiction with it, like "God either can make a construct he can't move, or He can't. Either way there's something he can't do." The fallacy is that "bringing the irresistible force to bear against the immovable object" is a contradiction of terms, and nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense by prefixing the words "God can".
1
Genesis 2 is not an instance of the Tetragrammaton being spoken by people in the narrative as compared with the narrator. The Genesis 4 instance is not a direct quote, but it IS an account of a human invocation. The invocation spoken of in Gen 4 was prior to the writing of the book Genesis. So the Gen 4 is the first invocation of which there is a Biblical account.
1
Interesting hypothesis, why don't you try to make that work in context?
1
I think that's the first thing I heard in sunday school as a kid, "plural of magesty".
1
@lonerider5933 A word that refers to things that exist is more generally useful than a word that refers to things that don't exist. When communists and fellow travelers say that every communist country "isn't real communism", what they mean is it isn't THEORETICAL communism. In a political argument with real world consequences the actual result of every push for communism is germane in a way that the terminology of a comprehensively discredited politico/economic theory is not. Communism as Marxist theory describes it does not and cannot exist, therefore it is not relevant to a practical political discussion. Anti-communism is an opposition to a practical ill, helpfully labeled in many cases by the perpetrators of evil with the name of the politico-economic theory that excuses the evil. The advocates of communism almost to a man supported the states in question, so the pertinent referent of the word "communism" is the actually extant system which the proponents are defending and the opponents are criticizing. Your equivocation is the propagandists eternal struggle to obfuscate.
1
" the USSR have never had in their millitary planning a plan for first strike and invasion of the USA, all the the Soviet millitary planning was centered around defense and response to aggression from the part of NATO." The USSR certainly had in their military planning plans for first strike and invasion of surrounding countries. The USSR never was able to project against the US Navy the power projection to invade the US directly. The US was always to be the last on the list. Not only were the Soviet military plans opened after the fall of the Soviet Union, so that this is documented; not only was Soviet military doctrine and force composition optimized for attack; but the grand strategy of the Soviet Union was spelled out by Lenin in open literature and never formally disavowed (at least not before Gorbachev). Subvert and where necessary conquer neighboring countries first, etc., and the United States last. Their plans had not reached the point to which they could profitably contemplate the invasion of the US yet. The plan was to conquer the rest of the world to gather the resources and bases necessary to defeat the US at home. The NATO never had and does not today have the force mix or treaty structure to facilitate an invasion of Russia except in response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member state. The local force mix and doctrine is first defensive, and could not contemplate invasion until the Russian forces were depleted by Russia attacks, as recent events indicate, or until US reinforcements arrive in response to a Russian attack on NATO.
1