Again, since this is a misunderstanding on your part, it is that argument that is thrown out. "
No, it's actually misleading on your part since I was obviously mention Danial to show that relying on "Hebrew origin" is a lame concept. That was obvious to anyone who can read and who isn't trying very hard to mischaracterize what I said.
Seeing a post start with deliberate misdirecting and mischaracterization more often than not means that whatever links such a post contains are worthless work by some lame dolt the poster tries to help by trying to generate page hits for them so I didn't bother with the links, either. It's always interesting when someone in the religion forum uses the misdirection tactics as the liberal scum. It makes you wonder if they have the same home office guiding them.
I didn't get beyond that initial mischaracterization of my post. I figure the rest was intended to distort rather than discuss just like the opening misdirection.
What part of "This sentence refers to the Hebrew canon" is so hard for you to comprehend? (Post 207.) Your polemic was based on the premise that being written in Hebrew was the criteria for canonical inclusion by us, rather than on whether it was in the Hebrew canon.
If you were familiar with and understood the arguments against the apocrypha, which you have thus far evidenced you are not but seem to be parroting one sided RC apologetics, then you would know that being written in another language does not necessarily negate Hebrew origin, nor does being in Hebrew necessarily mean it is canonical. Nor does inclusion in the LXX, despite your refuted recourse to that.
Seeing a post start with deliberate misdirecting and mischaracterization...
I think you are confused. I did not do any misdirecting, but referred you to the source of the statement in clarifying what was meant by "the Hebrew," having read that page myself prior to this, while it was you whose argument was based on mischaracterization of what that meant, even if it was not deliberate on your part.
more often than not means...
is this allegation the result of a scientific study or an opinion needed to justify your excuse?
that whatever links such a post contains are worthless work by some lame dolt the poster tries to help by trying to generate page hits for them so I didn't bother with the links
Well that is not only unsubstantiated but is a typical excuse given by other RCs for not looking at the evidence that refutes them. Rather than trying to generate page hits being the real reason for posting links (one of which was to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and i do not even know if i can find out how may page hits such pages as http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/ancients_on_scripture.html#2 get), i provide them as they supply needed or supplementary substantiation and which would often make the post quite long to reproduce here, and often they are to my own work and compilation.
However, unlike some of your RC comrades, links are rarely supplied as a substitute for an argument of my own.
It's always interesting when someone in the religion forum uses the misdirection tactics as the liberal scum. It makes you wonder if they have the same home office guiding them.
You are beginning to sound desperate and an irrational conspiratorialist, like some of those you call "scum," but such were some of us, for whom Christ died.
I didn't get beyond that initial mischaracterization of my post. I figure the rest was intended to distort rather than discuss just like the opening misdirection.
Again, the mischaracterization was your post, as a result of your lack of understanding of what "the Hebrew" referred to and your polemic was based upon, and which my post response corrected. And thus so far all your arguments have been shown to be specious.