Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "Turki Alalshikh"
channel.
-
4
-
i see what the issue is. In both fights, the commentary teams on both sky and dazn were so diabolically biased, it beggered belief.
throughout the fight, whenever bivol thru anything, they went wild, even more so when bivol didnt land a single one, they hardly mentioned any work that beterbiev did. it was shockin, both times. made no sense. When Beterebiev was doing good work, they were still waxing lyrical about flashy combos that Bivol thru which all missed the target.
to top it off, the replays were also very biased, esp in the first fight.
this is why a lot of casuals were duped.
i watched it again, and again, i just cant belive the bias in the commentary.
round 1 and 2 were close, but you could give them to bivol
3 swing round
4 5 and 6 were dominated by beterbiev
7 and 8 were swing rounds and could go either way
9 bivol
10 swing round
11 bivol
12 beterbiev
so 4 round were 100% beterbiev
4 rounds were 100% Bivol
i would say a draw, but due to the fact at no point did Bivol dominate, yet beterbiev dominated large parts of the fight, and that the rounds beterbiev won, he clearly won, whilst the ones Bivol won were close, i'd have to give it to Beterbiev.
it is unbelievable that the media are calling this a Bivol masterclass. wow
4
-
i see what the issue is. In both fights, the commentary teams on both sky and dazn were so diabolically biased, it beggered belief.
throughout the fight, whenever bivol thru anything, they went wild, even more so when bivol didnt land a single one, they hardly mentioned any work that beterbiev did. it was shockin, both times. made no sense. When Beterebiev was doing good work, they were still waxing lyrical about flashy combos that Bivol thru which all missed the target.
to top it off, the replays were also very biased, esp in the first fight.
this is why a lot of casuals were duped.
i watched it again, and again, i just cant belive the bias in the commentary.
round 1 and 2 were close, but you could give them to bivol
3 swing round
4 5 and 6 were dominated by beterbiev
7 and 8 were swing rounds and could go either way
9 bivol
10 swing round
11 bivol
12 beterbiev
so 4 round were 100% beterbiev
4 rounds were 100% Bivol
i would say a draw, but due to the fact at no point did Bivol dominate, yet beterbiev dominated large parts of the fight, and that the rounds beterbiev won, he clearly won, whilst the ones Bivol won were close, i'd have to give it to Beterbiev.
it is unbelievable that the media are calling this a Bivol masterclass. wow
2
-
all the sky pundits had it a draw, or to beterbiev,
tnt also had beterbiev winnin
in the first fight, as a beterbiev fan, i wasnt sure who would win after 12 rounds. However, Bivol knew he lost the championship rounds and the fight.
in this one, i was pretty comfortable that it was a clearer beterbiev win, and so was Beterbiev, he knew he won.
thats the difference in the 2 fights
it depends what you like. If you like point fighting, throwing combos, most of which miss, and running to nick rounds, Bivols your man
if you like people who dont run, and want to fight, and do damage, beterbievs your man
it takes more skill to stand and bang, whilst dodging and slipping, than it does to pitter patter and run
thats why vs canelo, bivol stood in front, and walked canelo down, vs beterbiev, bivol knew what time it was and got on his bike
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,
1
-
1
-
Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus.
In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement.
Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83)
It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions.
It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version.
Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1