Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + +
Why is Andrew Schlafly's insight more reliable than the Gospel of Mark?
{{cquote|οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one." The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else!|||[[Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)|Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (EST)]]}}
{{cquote|οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one." The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else!|||[[Talk:Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)|Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (EST)]]}}
It is not only that Andy Schlafly's mistake is so grotesque (he tries to attribute a '''femine''' ''accusative'' adjective to a '''masculine''' ''nominative'' pronoun) - the claim that the editors of the "English Standard Version" ''admit'' to commit the same atrocity, but then somehow cover it up, is ludicrous (Hint: they just use the standard translation of the demonstrative pronoun)
It is not only that Andy Schlafly's mistake is so grotesque (he tries to attribute a '''femine''' ''accusative'' adjective to a '''masculine''' ''nominative'' pronoun) - the claim that the editors of the "English Standard Version" ''admit'' to commit the same atrocity, but then somehow cover it up, is ludicrous (Hint: they just use the standard translation of the demonstrative pronoun)
----
Why is Andrew Schlafly's insight more reliable than the Gospel of Mark?
{{cquote|Mark wasn't there. Jesus did not speak aloud to a storm.|||[[Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge#Embarrassing Error|Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2016 (EST)]]}}