The backbreaker

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again you come at me with complete fabrications.  Read the site that you yourself linked us to.  Now, I don't know Hebrew, but they are breaking it down for us there and showing us, term by term, that all of those things you redacted in fact are in the passage.  I suppose in this case, after looking it over, that you are not lying but rather are just stupid.  It seems that you are looking at the direct translation of the root forms and then claiming that the text is written entirely in root form.  But there are 23 root form symbols on that chart and there are 54 symbols in the actual text:

Oh, my glob...
Hebrew is not a Latin based language. meaning you can not expect a word for word translation. It's whole structure is completely different. The prefix and suffix structure of the words give us indicators as to how the word is used  meaning from the prefix and suffix structures are we get all of our conjunctions, adverbs adjectives, and the rest of the bits and pieces that fill in the syntax and grammar. It is the root word that gives us structure and direction for this or any translation.

Here is how to properly use the interlinear I provided a link to:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/help/vid...m#section5

Also - and I don't expect you to know this since Christians generally don't have an education on the Bible - but the King James Version, more or less, is as direct a translation as you can find, and whenever words are inserted for clarification they are italicized.  Common insertions are possessive pronouns and conjugations of "to be," presumably due to the structure of the Hebrew language.  Take a look at this:

Ah, no. That his just KJV propaganda sport.
All bibles come from codecees (a collection of original hand written manuscripts.) their are 4 primary codecees from which the majority of bibles in print were written.
The Textus receptus is the codex from which we get the KJV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

If you took the time to read the link, you would note that the Receptus was the most accurate codex in the REFORM Era! (500+ years ago) It was miles above and beyond the latin vulgate. (from which the catholic bible was written.) However since then we have discovered and authenticated much older texts, and more complete texts than what is found in the Textus Receptus. That is why they re did the KJV and we have or can get other english translations.

The KJV is not more 'accurate.' as some of it's minor principles do conflict with later codacees like the Morphological Greek New Testament.

See, nothing in verse 16 is in italics.  So nothing is being inserted.  It is as direct a translation as linguistically possible aside from where they alter poetic language to sound more poetic to seventeenth century Europeans.  Here is a link to my source for your convenience:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Deu...hapter-24/

So now I'm wondering just how far up your ass you had to reach to pull that shit out.

Next time save yourself some embarrassment and just ask the question if you don't know how, why or what I am sharing with you.

All of that aside, This is a command from God to His people concerning relatives dying for the sins of others in their family, we in our unsaved state are not Children of God so the law does not apply.

WTF are you talking about?  This was God's covenant with the Jews.  David was a Jew.  In fact, he was the king Jew.  God shows he is above the law by torturing and executing David's infant son for David's sins.

The command is that no man judge or judge another for the sins of a son. God is not man, this answers the first 1/2 of your back breaker.

Jesus clearly explains this in the parable of the wheat and weeds, the sheep and goats, the wheat and chaff. He makes no bones about telling us that all of us were not placed here by God.

I don't know WTF you are talking about, or how you think it is relevant, and I certainly don't know how it is you think you've answered the question of whether or not God is above the law.  But there is one thing I do know:

what this addresses is the second 1/2 of your paradox in that Jesus died for our sins. (the implication being that was invalid)

It means we are not 'sons' of God till we accept the atonement of Christ.

Wow ok so you reject the KJV. Remarkable. Are you working on the Drich version? Perhaps the Rick James version? Can you tell me which version currently in existence is the one you use?

Also your rebuttal to me exposing you as a complete moron is that Hebrew is not Latin based. No shit. But it's still based on using symbols to create words so basic principles of cryptography apply. You were obliterated. You can actually save face by admitting that you were wrong. We'd respect you more. Burying your head in the sand does not impress us.

Anyway, you still don't get it. David's son was put to death by God for David's sins. This is directly opposed to the verse which means that God is above the law. Which is no real surprise since God invented the law. God probably eats shell fish and has a small uncircumcised cock. So the point is that God can do whatever he wants, so he can forgive us without dying on the cross, and he didn't want to die on the cross, so WTF was the point?