Meme Theology and the Conclusion of the Simply Seerah Video on a Jumbo DL

And welcome to the dividing line. Do some air guitar here. Wish i could play that. Well i haven't played in ages. I did enjoy it it was it was a lot of fun. But um you have your you make your choices.

I don't play chess anymore. Miss chess should play it more often. Um it's good for this thing up here. What little is left of it actually. Um but uh you know i haven't gotten shooting and i don't know we were we were gonna do that remember.

Yeah that worked out real well didn't it. We went once did we go once. They went once. Yeah yeah we were supposed to do it every month and went once that was good. Uh very expensive that year that was the most expensive time ever ever gone shooting.

Man i could have bought thousands of rounds what we spent for that. But anyway that's neither here nor there. Um just one quick let me mention it and then get out of the way we'll move on to more important things.

But the only thing i mean aside from just being sad for everyone who for example found kent hovind's materials in the past some somewhat useful to them i'm sad for all those folks seeing him just take his credibility and shoot it and stab it and bury it and do all that stuff.

Um but the one thing in the video this morning where kent hovind um decided that now see the story keeps changing and it's going to keep changing. Um but now uh there wasn't ever a debate and it was a program and now is in the studio audience.

Yeah i know there was a tiny little room. I know there was no studio audience but um yeah but the one thing that could come out of it that might be useful that might be useful and interesting is he says gail ripplinger is going to do a full write-up on it.

Um and that everyone's telling me no video today. Right. It's struggling. I i we're we're going back to the old method i don't know what's going on with our our speed test says we're streaming great. But so youtube.

I don't know maybe this is a really high volume time of day for youtube live or whatever. I don't know but we're we're struggling to keep our connection. That's lovely. Well we are recording but we are recording so that's the important part.

Yes yes. So i've got a bunch of graphics today so you may have to catch it uh dead cast as we call it or whatever but nothing i can do about that. Uh it had worked real well there for a while and now all of a sudden not working at all.

Um but the one good thing that may come out of all of this um is gail ripplinger is going to write up an entire story here. Now it does it will be a fascinating thing to 20 over 22 years after the event to see into the mind of gail interior designer ripplinger.

Um that will be fascinating. And especially because we actually have the recordings of what happened and obviously kent hovind does not have the time. I mean he just must be the busiest man in the world.

I mean he does not even have 46 minutes. I mean with all the driving he does. It's only audio. Doesn't he know how to use an ipod. Uh put on cassette. Man i bet you're somebody you you post videos. You you know how to use computers.

Um since he hasn't had the time to to actually listen to what happened. Um it makes me really wonder if gail ripplinger would actually go back and listen to that encounter from november of 1993 huh. I was going to grab her um blind guides book.

I forgot to grab it. Oh i i know where it is but don't worry about it. But um it'll be interesting to see what differences there are even between what she wrote within a year or two afterwards and what comes out now 22 years later.

I it it'll be useful one way or the other we'll be able to go. Uh let's just let's just compare reality documentable history with the flights of fancy. It'll be it'll be interesting. But it has reminded me that unfortunately there are um there is a resurgence in some way of the worst forms of king james only ism.

And it's only for one reason anybody with a computer can now publish stuff. And it does illustrate beyond all shadow of a doubt the fact that most even good churches do not do much in preparing their people to know something about the history of the bible where it came from.

And that's where stuff comes from. And so we are going to start a a we'll just call this section of the program when we do it i i wish see if we were if we were todd freel or something we'd have graphics and sound effects.

Do you have an echo sound effect. Not sure. An echo sound effect. Yes an echo sound effect. There you go. That's it. That's how it's done. I think i've got a coffee can in the room. Uh yeah. Okay. And you have to turn twitter off because the video's not working.

I know there's nothing i can do about it. Call youtube. You know. Um we're sending it. They ain't they ain't distributing it. So there's nothing nothing we've done about. Um if if we were free we'd have all this cool stuff and we go we call this meme theology theology theology theology theology that type of thing.

Uh and we'd have the echo to it and it'd be really cool. We'd have music and stuff like that. We don't have any of that stuff. So uh no that's all right. Uh meme theology. And it does seem that that's where theology is going these days for most people is down to the level of a meme.

And what i mean by that is i have one two three four i have five memes queued up here that i've pulled from facebook. Uh that i'm going to be using as illustrations and responding to them. Unfortunately to respond meaningfully requires more than just another meme.

I am reminded once again of the wise words of douglas wilson in response to the young lady. Um when he said i often have thoughts that require more than one sentence to express them. Okay there was there is more than a small amount of condescension hidden into the into the tonal qualities of brother wilson's comment at that point.

Uh but it's true. Uh it is true. And when we're talking about the history of the bible textual transmission things like that often requires more than a single uh sentence to express the truth. Let's uh let's bring the first first example of meme theology up on the screen.

If we could there we go. It's one of the king james versus niv. I love the the um mica especially loves mica wishes he could do graphic design like king james only people do because all of them are just really these letterbox things.

Sometimes you wonder if somebody didn't you know still get the magazine out and and cut letters. Yeah. Well well it does look like it's from the 1990s uh but that does seem to be the thing. Um so anyway here is king james verse niv mark 10 21 king james.

And come take up the cross and follow me niv then come follow me. And then of course the bottom of all of all the these these two that we're looking at they told me all bibles were the same. There was this.

Uh i forget which one i grabbed this from but one of the many many many many many king james only folks on facebook. So if we can minimize that let me see how is it still. Yeah yeah you can still see that it's it's big enough to figure out okay what i want to do with.

Well i'll probably have to switch back and forth. Now i think about it um just to be able to give you this information. And there's just no way with what i'm looking at here. Let me let me show you what i'm looking at when i look at why are you doing that to me.

Oh i see why never mind uh when i'm looking at what i have in accordance i have one two three four five six normal tabs in my regular accordance desktop setup. The third one over here is called new testament textual.

Why don't we go ahead and make that bigger. Nobody nobody can see any of that. So there we go. So here's here's the third i i have uh jrw main which is my main you know uh normally new testament text setup.

I have synoptics which is blank right now uh because i don't have a particular uh reference in there the new testament textual tab uh the textual interlinear tab which places your um your text into a interlinear form to where you can see sort of how it it's you know like here's greek new testament the tr westcott hort byzantine sinaiticus vaticanus washingtonianus and alexandrinus um and what each one of them has in that particular uh text so on so forth.

So it's that's pretty cool. And then you've got your new testament manuscripts pane right here. So i've got sinaiticus vaticanus washingtonius alexandrinus. And then if uh the papyri cover that which do not at mark 10 21 mark is does not have a whole lot in the way of uh papyri evidence uh to it.

And then i have an old testament text uh frame uh where i basically have the nesb the bibliohebraicus ducartensia the uh ralphs lxx. And then i've got the bill carson new testament use the old testament which normally i end up doing that but it's it is a useful resource to have.

I do have an excellent uh accordance library and an excellent logouts library. And sometimes you end up with things in both. Actually anyways we go back here to new testament textual. Here's mark 10 21.

And what i'm just gonna have to do is i'm gonna have to take the textual commentaries out and then blow up um the text so that it's actually visible on the screen. There we go. Uh so what is in the graphic that we just saw that someone posted on uh facebook is in reference to uh let me see here uh 10 21.

And it's right here. There is what is in the niv uh and then come follow me. And then you have this little thing right here. All right. Oh i didn't want to do that though. That's sort of interesting. It does that here is the textual marker indicating insertion of text after um moi right here.

And when you go over to the apparatus here is that same symbol right there. Why does it keep turning this thing on. I i can't find a way to to take that out of my startup routine. I need to. Um here's the insertion.

Take up your cross. Take up the cross. Washingtonianus family 13. A few others have take up your cross. Um interesting that the earliest exemplar of the byzantine text has you take up your cross. The cross of you.

Um but take up the cross is found in alexanderness um washingtonianus with that addition families 1 13 25 2 is the majority reading. Whenever you see this right here that's the majority reading. And then you have other translations like the syriac sahidic baharic.

And then that then you have the double dashed line and after that the text. So the text without that insertion is sinaticus vaticanus c d. Interestingly enough uh delta theta psi 0 2 7 4 5 6 5 5 7 9 8 92 24 27 a few others old latin certain manuscripts of the sahidic so sahidic notice it says s a m s and s a m s s.

There's more sahidic manuscripts that have it than do not. But it's it's a split um baharic. And then you get into your patricic citations like clement and so on and so forth. Which the this is actually the ne27 apparatus.

I'm not sure why i don't have the ne28 up but that's what popped up. I wonder where. Well let's go with that for now it's good enough. Um so oh i know that's because it's on my other computer. Never mind uh i've updated things on the other computer but not on this.

So here's your textual evidence. And what you'll notice is right here 834 mark 834. What's mark 834. Well here's mark 834. And in mark 834 jesus of course is saying the disciples um if you wish to follow after me uh deny yourselves and take up the cross take up his cross.

Actually he he must deny himself himself take up the cross his cross and follow after me. And so the indication in the textual data here is that this phrase has been borrowed from mark 834 and inserted in some later manuscripts uh and alexandrus being the being byzantine in the gospels so primarily the byzantine manuscript tradition at mark 10 21 that could have been done purposefully.

It could have been done uh just simply because someone knew mark 834. So well take up the very phrase take up follow after invoke the concept of uh my cross. And and so it was done inadvertently uh by the scribe who maybe wasn't paying attention was going from memory.

Um even a person reading could possibly make that kind of mistake. There are various possibilities. Now what this leads us to is the whole discussion which we've had in the past i'm not going to repeat it right now the whole discussion of uh how what weight you give to manuscripts.

We can go ahead and minimize that. But wait you give to manuscripts and the issue of accepting a minority reading over a majority reading um we've done the new test reliability presentation. We've discussed textual criticism on the program before.

Um you certainly can go back and find those things in the uh in the archives. But uh the vast majority of believing christian scholars believe that manuscripts that are the earliest carry the most weight.

It's not a matter of just counting manuscripts. Because if it was just a matter of counting manuscripts then two things would would be well a couple things would follow. The original readings of the manuscript tradition were primarily limited to one location um to those that would underlie the eventual byzantine uh manuscript tradition and that that methodology would give you a different majority text depending on what century you're in now one of the ways it's been used to get around this is that various sundry folks who have promoted a majority or byzantine priority position would say that manuscripts uh wore out over time uh that manuscripts um uh in certain locations were more likely to destruction than the dry desert climate and so it gives a unfair geographical advantage um so on and so forth.

The reality is it's a very it's it's incredibly complex to try to recreate the history of the transmission of the text over time um we don't you know it would be a whole lot easier today with the ability to have meteorological readings and um you know the kind of recording devices and things we have today but we didn't have any of that in the ancient world.

And so you had wars and famines and floods and fires and all sorts of things and so very often we don't even know where a manuscript came from. We can speculate that it came from egypt or caesarea or whatever.

The fact is we don't know. And so you you do have a whole lot of uh speculation shall we say the vast majority of believing scholars do not count manuscripts in the sense of well um 487 read this way uh 27 read this way.

So obviously the 47 wins given that the vast majority of manuscripts come from after 1000 a .d. Um that kind of methodology ignores the reality of the history of the transmission of the text. And so when you have the kind of evidence that you have in mark 10 21 coupled with the appearance of the phrase elsewhere and by the way i didn't show this to you.

But if the idea is if the idea is that the there's a conspiracy going on and the niv is trying to hide the call to discipleship and hide the call to take up the cross and so on so forth and and i didn't bother looking but i can guarantee you that you can find sermons from king james advocates specifically stating that that's what's going on.

No doubt about it whatsoever. But the fact of the matter is the niv says take up your cross and follow me at mark 8 34. So the call to take up the cross is right there it's it's right in front of us. Um that's sort of important uh and very rarely addressed.

I i guess that the theory would be well they couldn't take it out all the time because then we might catch on to them. But there is strong evidence that mark 10 21 is an addition. And what's important is to recognize that we have sufficient evidence upon which to discuss the issue.

If we only had one manuscript if we only had two manuscripts this would be extremely difficult to even begin to address these issues. But we have an entire manuscript tradition that allows us to to do things differently.

Now um i'll pause. Oh i can't i can't do that and change it. That's interesting. Uh let's go back to preview and try to find uh that one let's see what that one is now. So when i this is the only problem with this can you bring it up.

Yep there it is. Uh here is another one. Let's get it large enough so people can see it. This is the famous bloodless bible text that i i told the story of this in the king james only controversy all these texts by the way i addressed uh 21 years ago 22 years ago in the king james only controversy.

So uh if you want to read further on the subjects you can find them in in the book. This is one that bothers people on an emotional level in whom we have redemption through his blood in whom we simply have redemption not through his blood at colossians 1 14.

And again i can guarantee you there are numerous sermons out there speaking about the horrific modern translations that remove the blood of christ and are scandalized by the blood of christ. Everything else.

Of course the reason that the niv or the nsb or the esb does not have through his blood here is because the greek version that they are the greek text they're translating does not contain it. And there is a very good reason uh why that is the case.

And that is you can see it right here if we blow that up and here is uh in whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins. There's our insertion mark. Right there. That's interesting. On my screen the uh cursor is much larger than it is on that screen.

That's weird huh. So i'll have to move it around more. Um but see there you can see it there. But wow that's that's really weird. Anyway there's the insertion mark. Here's the insertion mark here and once again we have a text which indicates this is a what's called a parallel corruption.

A scribe familiar with a parallel text inserting it here is dia to haimatas out to via through by means of his blood one two three four greek manuscripts grand total earliest is the 9th century clementine vulgate heraclean syriac cassiodorus.

And that's it. Now keep something in mind. In the last variant the majority of text went against the modern translations. And as we're going to see in a moment very often king james only advocates will trumpet the problematic nature of the minority text.

They're saying you're going with a minority of the manuscripts. You should go with the majority of the manuscripts. Okay there are those that you know they're mature majority text advocates but in this case you're looking at the small minority underlying the king james version for predominantly irrelevant texts minuscules all from no earlier than the ninth century.

And in light of the fact that the exact phrase appears in the parallel of ephesians 1 7 and notice in whom blow it up there in whom we have the redemption dia to haimatas out to through his blood the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of his grace ephesians 1 7.

It's there in the niv. It's there in all modern translations no one's trying to hide anything about the blood of christ. There's no being scandalized none of the common stuff. You hear king james only advocates preaching about and screaming about.

Um it's right there. So ephesians 1 7 and colossians 1 14 are parallel passages. And over and over and over again i wonder if i have it. Uh yeah it's down there. I'm not going to reach all the way down there um to get it.

But if you would take the time to look at the textual apparatus the bottom of the ubs synopsis the the quattro young gallium uh the four gospel parallel which is what i've been preaching through for well teaching through for years in our sunday school um over and over and over again when you have close parallel texts between the gospels you'll find some scribes somewhere that decide to try to harmonize things they they decide that they wanted uh matthew to say the way say it the way that mark did or mark say it the way that matthew did or make them all photo copies of each other which would make them useless.

And so parallel corruption is a very very common thing to find the gospels. But there are other places where there are parallels. This is one of them colossians and ephesians. And so you have the exact same terminology and in all probability not purposefully but inadvertently because of memorization of ephesians 1 7 maybe the utilization of it in the liturgy of the church whatever.

Um you have the reins the insertion of this phrase into colossians where it was not originally. If if you're going to argue that that was there originally you're going to have to say that pretty much everybody in the first uh thousand years the church sort of forgot about it.

Or at least first 500 years minimally. Um and that only later did it somehow pop back in in some strange and miraculous fashion. And there will be king james only folks believe me there's always a way as long as consistency of argumentation means nothing to you there is no position in the world you cannot argue for easily done easily done.

Um but the important thing to realize is if you used the majority text argument before um then you should reject colossians 114 because that's not the majority text fact. I have the text right here. Um well actually i probably have the majority text in accordance too.

But uh it's more fun to look it up in this. So uh galatians colossians 114 in whom we have the redemption the forgiveness of sins. There is a note uh the note does tell you uh through his blood and it says majority text part.

Yeah four texts and tr. But it's not a part of the not part of the actual text in the majority text by hodges and farstad. And there's reason for that. So consistency becomes the issue. And i have said for a very very very long time the hallmark of king james only ism is inconsistency.

The standards that you apply to the king james are completely different than the standards you will uh apply to everything else. No king james onlyist can apply the same standards as the king james. They apply to every other translation.

They can't do it because presuppositionally they have embraced the king james as their final authority. So that's just all the written. So you have a minority reading here small late minority reading that made its way into the texas receptus reflected in whatever text erasmus had available to him.

And that's why it's there. That's why it's there. Now let me give you another example of this. And that will be this one here. Let me see if i can bring that one up. What you got now there we go now this is this is king james only graphics the the best of king james only graphic.

Um this is the best of king james only graphics and king james version. Now now this fellow luke lefevre i i made the interesting decision when i grabbed these and i reposted them to my feed and said i'm going to talk about some of these things.

I made the decision of dropping him a message on uh on facebook. Well i was he excited that i had done that. He he wanted to have a lengthy discussion about uh his interesting take on propitiation. That's what he wanted to do.

And uh so it was interesting. Um and i i also mentioned to him that i noticed he was had made the assertion that son of man refers to the human nature of christ son of god the divine nature of christ.

I said you you really. No no that's wrong. And so now because i messaged him that and we had that brief conversation now he just wants to talk to me all the time on facebook. But anyway luke 233 again all of these texts thoroughly discussed two decades ago in uh in uh the king james only controversy.

But here again the the issue is uh the matter of what it means. Joseph and his mother marveled or his father and his mother marveled. Um so this is verses 33 and 43 that are used here since it's in the book.

I'm not interested in going through all that gone through this many times before. What i want you to see is the form of argumentation. The form of argumentation notice it says the reading found the king james bible luke 233 is that of the majority of all greek manuscripts including a e g h k m s u y x psi gamma delta theta lambda pi psi and omega is also reading the old latin copies and so on so forth.

Likewise the reading of the syriac peshitta heraclian and some coptic uh baharic versions and the gothic ancient translations. So it goes on and on and on. And what's the argument. This is the majority reading.

And it is. And so there's the standard majority reading. You go with the majority reading. Right. Well here's here's the problem. Um why don't we blow this one up now i gotta read this. Especially because some of you again we recognize youtube has abandoned us yet.

Once again um but we're recording this time so you'll be able to watch this just not live. Revelation 16 -5. Now why would anybody be addressing this. Because i have addressed this and i have made the very strong argument that revelation 16 -5 truly gives the lie to so much king james only argumentation.

And it does it really does it. Revelation 16 -5 king james says thou art righteous. Oh lord which art. And was and shalt be. Because thou hast judged. Thus modern translation says just you are oh holy one who is and who was for you brought these judgments.

So the difference is between oh holy one and and shalt be a difference between hahaseas holy one and esamanos which means uh shalt be. Now what the king james only movement has had to try to do was deal with the fact that i have documented very plainly this is this is this came into the texas receptus via beza.

Uh erasmus didn't have it. Um i didn't get it out. But stefanos doesn't have it. This is beza's doing calvin's successor geneva. Now that really bugs him. I'm good. So many of these king james only guys are rabidly anti-catholic.

Just foaming at the mouth. Anti-catholic. You know they they wake up in the middle of night going survey us. I mean that kind of of anti-calvinist. Sorry did i say anti-catholic. They're anti-catholic too.

Uh anti-calvinist. Sorry. Anti-calvinist. And uh they're just. Yeah. Well that too. Uh they just move. So beza calvin's successor. This came from a calvinist. Oh oh oh how can this be. But since we put it and notice it even says it's sort of hard to see because the background but james white and revelation 16 -5.

It's uh right. Uh where to go. Oh there it is. Yeah right. There there's there's james white and revelation 16 -5. Again micah just wishes he could do graphics like this. Um um. Beza's conjectural emendation.

Now there's no question that this is where it came from. The 1598 beza was one of the texts they had. The five erasmus the 1550 stefanos and the 1598 beza. This is this is the text text that they use.

This is acknowledged. This is history. So which one had this reading. Beza did. They went with that all. Right. So what are they gonna do. Well this is one of the most amazing examples of straining at the gnat.

Listen. What's here. Beza's conjectural emendation. There are two latin commentaries with readings of revelation 16 -5 which agree with beza in referring to the future aspect of god and shall be beatus of libana and haimo halberstattensis a german bishop in the 9th century wrote a commentary.

The book of revelation titled commentaria in apocalypsin. So you have two latin commentaries allegedly. Um. And then listen to this. Uh there are at least two greek fathers who used the phrase to a person of the godhead christ.

And revelation is also referred to as ha er commonos revelation 1 4 1 8 4 8 11 17. What does any of this have to do with what the original reading revelation 16 -5 was from any meaningful perspective.

Zip. Nothing. Nothing at all. It is purely throwing dust in the air. Then notice clement of alexandria referred to god as ha esaminas who is to come. And gregory of nisa referred to christ as ha esaminas.

And on the baptism of christ. Can you imagine what these people would be doing if we made a change in the king james and use this kind of argumentation. Well you know there's god about 1700 years ago used this word in something completely different.

And so we should change king james bible. Yeah they buy it for a second. They just all right. Let's let's rip that out there. Uh betsy let's start writing a new page here for the king james bible. That's what we'll do right now.

Desperation. I mean this is desperation. And then what you can't see is look over here on the side. You can barely see this but it says summary. See here. Summary. Um which art and wasp and shall be completes a formula.

Oh so it's a formula. Let's see. Uh beatus's excerpt mentions the future aspect of god. Oh there's a future aspect of god. Hymo alluded this formula. Copies of revelation were extensively corrupted very early.

Bruce mesker approved the use of conjectural emendations. In principle. Um not here but in principle. Huh. Uh there is rabbinical and greek authority for beza's conjectural tratic. Formally we won't tell you what it is.

But it's there. There are only four witnesses of revelation 16 -5 prior to the 10th century. Well that's important. Sinaticus has confirmable examples confusing similar looking words. I mean listen to this.

This is to me one of the greatest examples i've ever seen. Congratulations to luke. I don't think he came up with this. He got this with somebody else. I'd be interested in knowing where it is. But this is the most concentrated effort i've ever seen of anyone to try to get around to what i documented the king james only controversy.

And this is what i love. Because this is the biggest example of abject desperation i've ever seen. There is not a single person on that side of that this argument that would ever give a picogram of weight to this kind of argumentation.

If it were used against the king james reading they would laugh at it. And rightfully so rightfully. So this is someone who understands the weight of the evidence and is doing everything in their power to get around it.

They don't care what the evidence is. They have one one job. Defend the king james reading. It's all you're going to do. One job so you can come up with anything no matter how abjectly and absurdly irrelevant.

Throw the dust throw the dirt. For most of our followers it will be enough because they're not concerned about consistent application of standards of textual criticism or anything else. It's amazing absolutely amazing.

But what i want you now to think about is how abjectly contradictory it is to the preceding graphic we looked at. Remember the preceding graphic. Um let me let me show it to you here. What was the whole argument here.

It's the majority reading majority of all greek manuscripts a e g h blah blah blah blah blah. That's what we should have luke 233. But when we move over here to the other one when whoops let me move over here to revelation 16 5.

Yeah actually all the greek manuscripts we possess of revelation 16 5 say the same thing. But we will throw all of that right out the window. Why. Because we're not arguing from the facts. We have a position and it's the king james.

That's just the way it is. So we'll go with it and we'll just throw stuff up in the air and just dust and dirt everywhere. Just try to obscure the fact that we don't have any basis none. We're taking the reading that we're taking.

But it's what's in the king james. So that's what we'll defend. There you go. Man is it core to four. No it's not you you messed my you messed my computer in here. There is no way that covering only four of those little things has taken me 45 minutes.

Well you know we're going jumbo anyways. Right. Well we've got to go jumbo. Gotta go jumbo anyway. And have we pretty much given up on youtube. Oh you're disconnected. Great. All. Right. Well wonderful.

Have you tweeted out. Listen audio. And then we'll we'll you need to need to let the the twitter audience is is all really sad and depressed. So yeah i i i have no words at the moment. I just you know.

Okay i i it was just i kept trying to connect and connect and it lasts for about 30 seconds and then start failing again. And it's like this is if i keep doing this it's going to mess up the recording again.

And i don't want that. That's true. That's true. We don't want that to happen. Okay all right. Let's uh shift gears quickly. I did mention to a muslim uh rudolph bushoff posted a picture of some books he was reading and a couple muslims decided to jump on.

By the way did you see the the uh yaya snow video accusing me of bigotry. You know what it was. He accused a bunch of people of bigotry. All it was was jay smith and i both sort of know the same thing.

And that is and this is just this is just fact. This isn't bigotry. This is a fact. Middle eastern people argue differently than londoners. Um for middle eastern people the the volume of your voice is directly relevant to the confidence you have in expressing it and things that we westerners do not find at all convincing.

A lot of middle easterners do find convincing. And not because it's logical but because it is part of the argumentation. And that's not bigotry. That's that's that's observation of absolute fact. No one no one who's ever.

I mean everyone has seen it. It's it's obvious yaya snow. I i believe yaya's purpose in life is to just simply muddy the waters and try to keep any meaningful conversation happening between serious christians and serious muslims.

I really do. Um they watch this program. Hi yaya how you doing. I don't know why you do what you're doing but i really do not have any respect for what you do. Um really find it if you want bigotry. I think that anyway.

Um he jumped in on rudolf's uh post. And then this one guy just started dropping a bunch of stuff all these memes muslim memes on what um he had posted. So i grabbed just one and i i tried to challenge him on it and it became very obvious when he responded that he does not speak english.

So that was worthless. Um but here's here's the meme. You should have it. Um okay let's uh bring it up here. Uh there we go. Jesus said and indeed allah is my lord and your lord so worship him. That is the straight path 1936.

That's sort of mariam 19 36. And so i'm seeing more and more of these things on uh on facebook. And so here's my challenge to my serious muslim friends. And obviously you guys you guys watch because you put stuff up you know a day or two after it's been posted.

So you're watching. That's good. I'm glad you are. Yeah yeah i'm even glad you are. I just it just frightens me to think that. Oh by the way and you know where you know what he pulled it from this this is the amazing thing is from my criticism of waleed shobat.

I was saying waleed shobat thinks that these long tirades are mean something. And so here i am. And in essence i'm criticizing one of the people who are pushing for christian jihadism and crusaderism.