Another Sneaky Good Reason Why the Gospels Aren't Myths
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The Four Gospels are full of pointless minutia. Have you noticed this? For instance, John tells us there were six waterpots at the wedding in Cana that could hold 20-30 gallons of water each. Well, that’s oddly specific. It serves no obvious theological meaning or literary purpose. Why are statements like these there?
Scholar Lydia McGrew calls these “unnecessary details.” She writes: “An unnecessary detail appears to be there for no special reason; it is just there because the author believed it was true. It lends verisimilitude to the account precisely by being so pointless, and in some cases (though not always) vivid. Such details are thus plausible marks of eyewitness testimony -- either from the author himself or from one or more of his sources.”
If the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, this is exactly what we’d expect to find. And this is the sort of stuff you won't find in apocryphal gospels, such as the Gospel of Peter or Thomas. Let’s look at a few examples and you’ll see what I mean.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Get merch: is-jesus-alive...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices, Lydia McGrew amzn.to/3yRZbhA
See also: The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage, Lydia McGrew amzn.to/2U6DWdc
Mic used: BLUE Snowball USB Microphone Gloss Black amzn.to/35qdvBc with InnoGear Adjustable Mic Stand for Blue Snowball and Blue Snowball iCE Suspension Boom Scissor Arm Stand with Microphone Windscreen and Dual Layered Mic Pop Filter, Max Load 1.5 KG amzn.to/3wAfWwZ
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
The Gospels are based on true stories and history. They are the witnesses when God is dwelling here on earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
Pray for the two people I’m debating with.
Well done with your arguments.
Quick PSA: The Gospels are Eye witness accounts
*Also, adding unnecessary details makes it easier to prove the authors were lying, if in fact they were lying.*
A liar would add as few details as possible to his main point. But if you know you're telling the truth, you can simply tell everything without fear of being proved wrong.
Yep. Most liars try to keep things more realistic, and only include things that can be accounted for and verified (even though they are actually not since they are lying).
Genisis 3:14 god punished snakes to eat dust
@@gustavmahler1466 no the snakes punishment was to eat dust and crawl on the ground
A liar could just as easily add extra detail to make their story sound more true. The real test is when the statements are scrutinised; much easier to do when recorded or written down.
@@oilscience9808 yes and the bible failed that test when it said snakes eat dust
This is a cumulative case argument. It would be easy to hand wave just the one piece of evidence by itself. I'm glad that we have many various forms of evidence that help in showing the authenticity and accuracy of the biblical narrative. It's able to be cross referenced with the OT prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah and very specific circumstances that are barely recorded in history yet are still known today. God bless you ministry @Tastify!
@@gustavmahler1466 no although crucifixion victims usually were cast into Gahanna where they burned trash and other things Jesus body was salvaged from the cross by the man Joseph of Aramathea who placed his body in a Jewish burial tomb.
@@gustavmahler1466 yes the passage does say that Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice and an offering for a sweet-smelling savour. This is hyperbolic and symbolic language. The crucifixion was both a testament to God's abhoration of sin and of Jesus' willingness to endure severe pain and suffering for people like you and I which we deserve in our place, because He loved us enough to do this. Similar language is used in Roman's to describe Jesus sacrifice as both the most horrendous act that ever had been done but also the most beautiful at the same time. Is your contention with how sacrifices were done in the OT covenant or something? Sacrifice has always been a bloody gory act to behold whether it be from the Azteca to the Druids so not sure what the question is regarding.
@@gustavmahler1466 where do you get that from? Kind of an arbitrary statement to make don't you think? Do you believe that every sacrifice has to be cooked and eaten or something?
@@gustavmahler1466 there is no requirement for a sacrifice to be burnt. Do you know that sacrifice is represented by the spelling of blood for appeasement? The Levites were given the command to burn the sacrifice and to eat what was left of it for themselves. The actual act of sacrifice is the spilling of blood.
@@gustavmahler1466 do you understand what the "sweet-smelling savour" means in the context of God experiencing it? God perceives things differently then we do hence why He says our ways are not His ways nor our thoughts like His thoughts. God is not smelling the roasted meat of the sacrifice but He is relishing the use of the sacrifice to cover the sins of the nation. When Jesus spilled His blood it was the a greater effect. The greatest in fact. Jesus dying as a man in the place of us was the greatest gift that could be offered to us albeit none of us deserve it. I find it strange that you are hung up on the phrase sweet-smelling savour when the Bible clearly distinguishes our senses from what God perceives. Was this your only question?
I didn't even know about this argument, always nice to learn something new.
In fiction there is a rule of "Chekov's gun." It refers to the idea that an author doesn't include details by accident, and that if there is a gun mentioned on the mantle, expect it to be used later. This doesn't occur in historical documentation. That little rule might be a good intro to this evidence if you are talking to a writer or movie buff.
I don't find this evidence that good. If you don't believe in God or anything supernatural it will take a lot more to convince you. I am a Christian, former agnostic, it took being interested in UFOs and related phenomena to become a Christian. Now, when I look back at it, it is because it was clear to me that whatever the explanation was, it was out of the ordinary, it was blatantly defying our understanding of reality. There was no giant leap from "nothing extraordinary exists" to "Christianity is true". I don't think atheists and agnostics will make that giant leap because of evidence such as the one in this video.
The saying goes that the "Devil is in the details". More likely we cans say that the "Truth is in the details." Well done, Good and Faithful servant!
Of course, a skeptic will respond that the gospel writers invented these random details to give the appearance of verisimilitude.
Or something like" Spiderman includes specific details about places does that Make it true"
@@PresidentV1 😂😂😂😂😂that sounds too real
@@PresidentV1 Exactly lol. And what a terrible, anti intellectual response. Everyone knows Spider-Man is invented comic, not based on any real person.
Jesus of Nazareth on the other hand was historically real person (as agreed by virtually every historian), and it’s also generally agreed that the gospels, whatever one may think about them, fit the genre of Greco Roman biography. They weren’t writing what they believed to be myth. They were writing history
*Triggered*
That's exactly what Lewis was addressing in the quote in the video. People have to believe Christians invented a whole new genre of literature that was then forgotten for hundreds of years. Or these are details from the retelling of the witnesses' stories.
I didn't know about any of these nuances in the text! Thank you so much!
Great stuff! Your vids tend to go into details that most other RUclips apologists don't dive into.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for these videos. Their help on this especially important topic in the life of faith, is definitely not insignificant and helps. God bless you!
0:59 - John 1:39 and the time
1:20 - John 6:19 and distance
1:33 - John 21:11 and the number of fish
1:58 - Mark 4:38, what Jesus was sleeping on
2:21 - Mark 11:4, location of a colt
4:28, 4:42 - Luke 19:4, Zaccheus, and a sycamore tree
5:00 - John 5:2 and the Pool of Bethesda
5:38 - CS Lewis’ take
6:34 -
Just found your channel. Awesome! God bless!
You’re doing godly work with this channel. Keep up the good work!
This has become my favorite channel lol
This seems like a pretty good argument but I think the 153 fish has a symbolic theological purpose. A little while ago we where going through Johns gospel at church and I'm pretty sure that 153 is some sort of symbolic number. I could be wrong, either way this doesn't break or make the argument anyways.
So what is the symbolic significance then?
@@TestifyApologetics I looked more into it and it may be more speculative although Jerome apparently connected it with Ezekiel 47. Like I said I'm not to knowledgeable on this and I could be wrong.
@@anunknownentity1637 Gotcha. The fact that it's difficult to come up with might tell you something. 😉
@@TestifyApologetics yeah, the more I read about it the more I realize it isn't set in stone. When we where going through John someone asked if 153 had a symbolic meaning and a friend of mine looked it up and said it was a symbolic number of perfection. I didn't really have any reason to question him at the time but looking back I'm not sure where he got such a concrete answer
It does have meaning. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire St. John to know exactly how many fish without having a meaning for it? Nothing in scripture is without significance and there are many things hard to understand as St. Peter says.
Commenting for algorithm
Lewis goin sicko mode on them doubters
Another great video! Thank you!
Great stuff and much appreciated.
The Wedding at Cana is not a good example in my opinion. The 6 earthen jars filled with water sound off theological meaning: SIX jars of EARTH and WATER, over which Jesus demonstrates mastery at transformation? Would this not seem to be an allusion to Creation Week?
History is soaked in theological significance! God is the God of history after all.
What CS Lewis starts off with is basically the opening lines to Something Just Like This by Coldplay.
I'm about to do some research on this: but it would make sense that John's gospel would have come later, because, from what I know, he was the last one to die. In fact, he died a natural death, not a death like the others.
Piecing together everything like that is only possible through the Holy Spirit.
The Gospels are TRUE myths. CS Lewis is correct. Because the Gospel is THE BEST story. But I get why you're saying they aren't myths.
Good stuff!
great video again
Is it possible that the disciples were just mistaken on the miraculous parts of the events? Suppose they were very excitable and impressionable and they sometimes interpreted ordinary events in a miraculous way, and when they discussed the events amongst themselves, they exaggerated the details?
The biggest issue for me with just accepting that the Bible testimony is entirely true is the confusion in the church. Even if I decided to believe that all the supernatural events really happened, I would not know which church to go to, which doctrine of salvation to choose, I would be confused about the nature of prayer (since I've never gotten a tangible answer from a God who supposedly wants a personal relationship with me), etc. Considering that most churches historically anathematized all the other churches, it really is likely a matter of salvation to get the right church.
Don’t be swayed by these different denominations I personally don’t think it matters if you are an evangelical or a Catholic. What matters is if you have a personal relationship with Jesus.
Yeah I was also wondering why pointless details were put in the gospels like in John 8 where Jesus began to draw with his finger, like why add that?
Because of what he was writing.
Another good video!
But what does one conclude from this? That jesus was a historical person and that he had followers the reported on his life?
there are superfluous facts and unnecessary details in Greek mythology. does this mean those storys are also eyewitness?
Can you give me some examples?
though this is not Greek mythology, I think the epic of gilgamesh would be a good starting point. this is set in 2700bc and is one of the oldest texts known with the exception of the pyramid script. interesting enough it is a flood narrative.
where are there unnecessary details in that narrative? Give me some quotes.
@@de4think.469 Might I also add that you pulled a red herring/ moved the goal post.
When challenged on your assertion about Greek mythology, you shifted to the epic of Gilgamesh. Am I to assume that there are no equivalent instances in Greek mythology of superfluous details, but there are in the epic of Gilgamesh?
I referenced the epic of gilgamesh for a few reasons.
The possibility of writing styles changing as time moved further. The epic of gilgamesh being much older it nullify that possibility.
also it seems that Greek mythology has been told and retold so many times that having a solid reference of original text is a little tricky. perhaps the changes are no more than the subtle changes between diffrent version of the bible though.
in Homer's poem the Iliad
there are numerous examples of non essential details that help to craft the story.
the number of pieces of animals used for sacrifice rather than just a sacrifice.
the color of ships and further the color of specific ships sails rather than just ships.
the names of songs being sung rather than just songs being sung
the color and materials used for attire.
this can all be found within the first book.
Adding seemingly pointless minutiae would be a good way for a Gospel writer to create an impression of verisimilitude. So this argument is really quite weak.
Nah dude, the number of broomsticks in Harry Potter's closet are complete minutiae when considering the complete series by JK Rowling, therefore magic is real.
And yet the gnostic gospels that were really trying to supplant them failed to make use of such?
Thanks for these bro.
Could you do a video on the apocryphal gospels, i want to see any evidence that proves they're fake/real
Yeah, I think I will at some point. Might be a little while.
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you
I understand what you're trying to assert, but it appears you're making assumptions regarding these "unnecessary details". In what way (other than: "because of these specific details, they must have been there") do these "unnecessary details" lend credibility to the gospels? I'm genuinely curious. It seems, for lack of better words, very "wishy-washy."
I think your misunderstanding of the video lies in the differentiation between " lends credibility" versus "proves".
@@oilscience9808 You are correct. Either way, how do these unnecessary details prove the legitimacy of the gospels as eye witness accounts? How do they prove anything regarding Christianity? Granted, some of these details may be historically accurate given that the authors may have used some of their experiences when crafting these scenarios, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the gospels are accurate.
@@cmoney9899 it doesn't prove anything about Christianity. It only lends credibility to the assertion that the new testament writers were writing from a historians literary approach versus crafting a narrative; and it lends credibility the the writers themselves were the eye witnesses to many of the events.
The assertions in the video do nothing to prove theologically significant claims, nor do they prove that all of the recorded events actually happened.
The writers could have collectively hallucinated, been brainwashed, or just simply believed what they were writing. Either way, I think that this a valid argument about the intent of the authors(history), and almost nothing more. Conceding to this argument doesn't mean, in itself, that Christianity is true. It's just a valid argument that suggest that we can infer things about the authors.
The criterion used for making the assertions about the authors intent is valid. It's widely used when evaluating other non theological ancient documents.
Regardless of your beliefs about Christianity, I think this line of argument from this video holds valid and true; it's just that it's easy to extrapolate a single point of validity and projecting that on to all the other claims. I don't believe that to be in the scope of this argument, even though the video touched on it.
From a Christians perspective this would be called a "cumulative argument" for Christianity. Whereby scrutinizing the minutia adds numerous small points that total up to a single larger claim. My guess (inference) is that is the intent of the video, to explain a small portion of a cumulative case.
"153 fish"
I have read this this number was equal to the number of species of fish known to the ancient Roman world/first century Jews. I can't remember which, but it could certainly be both.
Yeah I'd need a real citation here.
quick question: i follow you on twitter and notice that some twitter-atheists ridicule you and our God in your replies. do you get frustrated by this? if so, how do you handle the frustration? if not, is there any particular reason why?
I'm starting to think Twitter is just an epic waste of time. I'd be lying to say it's not frustrating. Where the criticism is valid, I try to take it. Where it's just insulting, I ignore it.
Just block them
Twitter is gay
It is highly unlikely that Paul was martyred in 62 AD right after the ending of the timeline of Acts. You don't put someone with a death sentence over his head under house arrest with minimal guard and able to receive any amount of visitors. Also the charges against Paul were admittedly vague and not against Rome So it is not at all likely Paul was executed as a Roman Citizen in 62 AD. The tradition that he was released and then latter imprisoned in around 67 AD for different charges and under harsher circumstances is more likely.
In ‘3 bad reasons to doubt the traditional authorship of Matthew’s Gospel,’ you quoted ‘misquoting Jesus.’ Could You give the page the quote on a from? I just want to double check for myself. Thanks
I can look, sure. Can you give me a timestamp?
@@TestifyApologetics 3:56
Sorry it took me a minute it's page 38
@@TestifyApologetics thank you
Helpful as always
Could it be argued that some of these details are so obscure that they would unlikely be remembered by actual eyewitnesses let alone preserved by the early church?
My wife can remember down to the color and smell and sound details of her childhood, especially those memories that are still strong.
Therefore, when someone encounters an event that is so strong, they’re usually able to remember even the unnecessary details of that event. Even after decades.
Some people probably could, but the one thing everyone agrees on with eyewitness testimony is that people always seem to grab on to and remember small trivial things even better than the big thing.
@@whatsinaname691 That's very true.
I mean, even if that was the case, it wouldn't show anything about the authors' intentions other than the fact they are desperate for people to be saved so include small obscure details. Doesn't really matter if they are made up or not since the end goal is the same and either way, doesn't change their intentions in the slightest.
ancient memory is much better than modern memory remember ancient jews had orally memorized the whole torah and still memorize it today and ancient greeks memorized works like the illaid memorization was great years ago
From my experience, people add unnecessary details when they are lying and really trying to convince you they are telling the truth. In fact, when that happens, that raises a lot of red flags for me and makes me think they are not being truthful with me. These two videos of interrogation footage also seem to indicate that.
ruclips.net/video/Xfg861hO-Ag/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/WLSNPkf8RCU/видео.html
Unless you can honestly look yourself in the eye and say that these types of evidences in Mormonism or Islam would cause you to believe they are more likely to be true please please please don't share them with your skeptic friends.
Those other religions lack these and other evidenced. That is precisely the point.
@@TestifyApologetics I didn't claim they do. Any book that claims to be true and has these types of evidences go up in likelihood to be true?
The question of what you or I would do is different from what we should do in such a hypothetical scenario. It should be clear that a good argument should move you in the direction of accepting the conclusion, even if it takes us toward Islam or Buddhism. Whether I would move in that way is a fact about me personally, and not relevant in philosophical discourse.
@@JM-jj3eg all I'm asking is that Christians try to evaluate the arguments a bit from a different perspective before running off to their skeptic friends with what at first glance might feel like a very convincing argument to them.
@@jbeiler55 Who among Muslim or Mormon apologists are using terms like "undersigned coincidences", "multiple independent attestation", "enemy attestation", "criterion of embarrassment" etc. I'm not aware of any non-Christian apologetics that's operating anywhere NEAR the same level.
How can you possibly use this as any type of evidence to the authenticity of the bible? There are so many problems. First of all, have you ever read a novel? Every novel has very insignificant details to make it sound as plausible and real as possible. This is how a fake story is written. Second of all, how do you know the authors of the bible were not assuming you would be thinking this exact thing and that is exactly why it has details. And lastly, if anything this should point to this being a lie. If it was true and none of this has any significance, why would the authors bother telling you any of it? Maybe just maybe they did it simply to trick you into thinking it is true by trying to make it seem as detail oriented as possible.
Do you realize the modern historical novel wasn't written until just a few hundred years ago? Do you realize that "maybe's" come cheap especially in the face of prima facie evidence?
@@TestifyApologetics Not sure what your point with novels is and this is very far from prima facie evidence as I've already explained. I was clearly being sarcastic when I said "maybe" and really meant "obviously". My point is that you've come up with videos with good solid attempts at proving things. This one, if anything, does the opposite and bolsters the claim against the gospels being authentic. Really not sure how you don't see that. You'll notice that in the ot as opposed to the nt there is very little in the way of extra minute details. I wonder why. "Maybe" because it's true and it doesn't bother telling you things you don't need to know.
@@nothingbutthetruth613 I may have this wrong, but what I understood the point of this video to explain was:
Because of the timeframe, and the inclusion of superfluous details, it lends credibility to the argument that the nt biblical authors were actually eyewitnesses to these events, as opposed to collecting conjecture and anecdotes from other people. Given the style of writing, it's reasonable to infer that the writers were writing from a historians approach, versus a novel approach.
To be clear, this does nothing on its own, to prove the Bibles claims about about anything theological. It merely supports the idea that the nt biblical authors saw something, believed it to be true, and wrote it down.
This literary criterion is used often when evaluating other writings that have no theological significance.
My take is that, regardless of your theological views, critical evaluation of the nt biblical text definitively shows certain characteristics about it's authors ( same thing with all other literature.) One of these characteristics is that it's reasonable to assume that the nt authors were attempting to record history, instead of fabricate history.
I believe that is the point of the video.
Again, this doesn't prove anything from a theologically significant stance. The authors only had to believe what they were writing; they could have been brainwashed, like cult members or something.
Being that this literary tool is an often employed mechanism for evaluating ancient writings, you would be hard pressed to argue against the scholars that regularly use this tool. You would eventually have to relearn much of what you know about history that you probably take for granted if you were to reject this literary criterion; that is if you don't want to have double standards and live in cognitive dissonance.
I hope this helps.
@@oilscience9808 No, I think you understood the intention of this video precisely. However, did you read my comment and my arguments against it? You seem to be sure that this is the literary style of historians and the fact that there are so many details is somehow a classic sign that it is authentic and a personal testimony. How do you know this? Common sense would definitely tell me otherwise. I'm not saying you are wrong because I am not familiar with that but where do you get this from? When I make up stories to tell my kids, I always embellish them as much as possible. This is a classic way to write novels by the way. You use as much detail as possible to make it sound as real as you can and let the reader feel part of it. How do you know the writers of the nt didn't have the same intentions? I'm not even going to broach the problem of all the contradictions between the 4 gospels and the colossal problem that creates.
I know you repeated a few times that this is no way proves anything theological and I agree. However, there is no doubt that this is the intended byproduct of this video since once you prove it was witnessed by 4 eyewitnesses, it gives the authenticity of the whole thing a bit more credence. Look at the ot in contrast to the new. It's exactly the opposite. If christians are using this method to determine that this is authentic, then the ot must be a fake according to them since the ot has very very few details. The reason there are so few details is because it only tells you what you have to know. Telling someone more than is necessary sure looks to me like something being forged...in my opinion.
@@nothingbutthetruth613 good points.
I will say that the arguments for superfluous ( completely unnecessary) details ONLY lends credibility, specifically when analysing the intent of authors from this specific timeframe.
Embellishment in a novel often helps to create imagery ( as you pointed to), but often doesn't stray into the superfluous.
A contemporary example:
In the first Harry Potter book when the owls were delivering the acceptance to Hogwarts letters, the exact number of letters delivered wasn't said. The imagery was created without the need for specifics. But we know those books were rewritten as novel, and it wasn't trying to sell us on history.
In the case of the nt writers, they claimed that they were writing history, and the tiny little details help to validate that. It doesn't prove it, just helps point to it.
I think the case gets stronger from a historical anachronisms standpoint, that it was unlikely for people at the time to make novels that claimed to be history, but were not, and used embellishment to sell the story.
The book of Tobit is a great example of this. Tobit came later, claimed to be history, used superfluous details, and embellished. But that's just it, that style of writing was at that point more contemporary. But with the nt writers it was not.
As I sort of mentioned, this is just a tool for scholars to weigh the perspective of ancient texts. In this case I would say this is more a matter of perspective; where to some, their view is that it lends credibility, and to others it does not.
Again, this is not a proof, but more a single validating point, in my view. I'm inclined to believe, given the weight of evidence ( much of which not mentioned here) that the nt writers were actually writing from a historical perspective.
I will mention, even though it is beyond the scope of this argument, yet still pertinent, that the writers were willing to die for their beliefs. Which many did. There is evidence for this from non Christian sources. Kind of a parallel line of reasoning.
As for your comment/question about the old testament; that is beyond the scope of this line of argument. It's a fascination subject, none the less, but strays away from the topic. In order to validate cohesiveness between the two testament, you would have to concede divine interaction. I think that if one were to solely make a case that the nt writers believed what they wrote to be history, interjecting theological arguments that are outside the purview, only muddies the intent of a single case argument.
Sure, the authors could of fabricated it all, I just think the evidence points towards a different direction.
Progressive revelation or natural development of religious myths?
Look at the evidence:
*1. The NT contradicts the theology of the Old Testament.* Two examples.
A) Deuteronomy 30:11-15 says:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.
It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?'
Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?'
No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction."
According to Paul, however, you CAN'T keep the law for yourself. You need Jesus to do it for you (Romans 3, e.g.).
B) "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". - Mark 2:27
As beautiful as it sounds, we don't have that in the Old Testament. People were killed for gathering wood on the sabbath (Numbers 15).
*2. The apostles and probably Jesus believed the end of the world was imminent* (1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 15:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 5:1-4; Revelation 3:11 etc).
*3. We can see the origin of core christian beliefs (messianism, cosmic dualism, rewards and punishments after-death, imminence of the eschaton) happening outside the cannon. They were born in the jewish apocalypticism of second temple judaism.* I Enoch, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Weeks etc.
This is exactly what we would expect if there is no God behind it.
It's funny that you have to conflate terms and definitions to state your case. You can do better than this.
@@oilscience9808 Nice try, champ. Is this the best YOU can do it? C'mon.
@@piano9433 nope, I can do way better. I was just giving you a heads up about some issues in what you said.
@@oilscience9808 Nice. So back up your claim. Show the conflations.
@@piano9433 I would love to, and I will, if you want. I'm currently waiting on "De4th Inc" to rebuttal in an alternate thread of comments on this same video. I wrecked him pretty bad, so he may not show up; I'm going to give him a little bit longer to do some research or whatever he is doing.
Yours is a big comment, so it would take a large investment of my time, so I'll wait a bit first.
I didn't reread you comment before posting this, so I may be off a little bit, but what I remember is some glaring misinterpretations and conflation in what you said. I'm pretty used to this style of argument because it's so common.
You should check out the comments from "De4th Inc." in the meantime.
I'll be back.