Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 30, 2021 #126 Share Posted April 30, 2021 35 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: This one hasn't been repealed though,,,Why???? Why was the Magna carta 1215 and then 1217 ever created in the first place? Because the King was terrified of, and very VERY close to, losing power (and his head) to a cabal of rich, influential nobles. In desperation he signed away some of his Regnal powers. ohh and you previous mentioned that the New King James Version of the Bible is the most recent translation.... it isn’t. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible is the most recent and is, just so you know, the translation used by the Catholic Church. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 30, 2021 #127 Share Posted April 30, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison Well it is for the courts. The courts have to stick to the bible as a policy handbook. No one is greater than the bible and what it states, especially the latest one, NKJV. God has told them that Parliament is GOD! and parliament works on policy! 2+2 = 4. If Scott morrison takes Australia to war with china, it will be coming from GOD? No, like most things coming from Scotty from Marketing... it’ll be coming straight out of his ass. Edited April 30, 2021 by Sir Wearer of Hats 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #128 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 hours ago, OverSword said: When did I condemn the population of China to or of anything? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Pardon me, and I apologise. I really meant the pile up on China as a whole. It's not the people, but the polititions that are the problem. I think, and then set me off. So sorry OverSword, my ego was set free for a moment. Thanks for making me realize it. Cheers, Hank 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #129 Share Posted April 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Because the King was terrified of, and very VERY close to, losing power (and his head) to a cabal of rich, influential nobles. In desperation he signed away some of his Regnal powers. ohh and you previous mentioned that the New King James Version of the Bible is the most recent translation.... it isn’t. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible is the most recent and is, just so you know, the translation used by the Catholic Church. I tend to disagree. It was all planned because it was written in the stars what was going to happen in the times we are now. You missed the point. NKJV was revised to include an updated romans 13. WHY??? Why do these bibles always get updated, altered, it's like they're making it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #130 Share Posted April 30, 2021 42 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: Not section 39 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. This one hasn't been repealed though,,,Why???? Why was the Magna carta 1215 and then 1217 ever created in the first place? There is no Chapter 39. The versions you refer to were superseded. Even living in the past you're out if date. Chapter 29 is still in place in some jurisdiction: NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #131 Share Posted April 30, 2021 10 hours ago, third_eye said: And in closing... "Get off the grass please... " ~ "Shakes tiny fist at annoying cloud." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #132 Share Posted April 30, 2021 12 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Her Kylieness Approves Hubba. You made an old gut sit bolt upright. IYKWIM,AITYD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #133 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said: We are still in the feudal system. Invoking the royal we? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 30, 2021 #134 Share Posted April 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: I tend to disagree. It was all planned because it was written in the stars what was going to happen in the times we are now. you can disagree as much as you want. You’d still be wrong. 10 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: You missed the point. NKJV was revised to include an updated romans 13. WHY??? Why do these bibles always get updated, altered, it's like they're making it up? Because understanding and usage of language evolves. You might notice that we din’t use “thee, thy and thou” anymore, as one wee example. and I may be mistaken, but some verses and chapters were added later because that’s when they were discovered (Dead Sea Scrolls and so forth and such similar events). Or it was politically expedient to leave them out of previous translations. Or the translator didn’t like them. I mean, my RJE has verses thar my NKJV doesn’t and visa versa. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #135 Share Posted April 30, 2021 10 hours ago, third_eye said: And in closing... "Get off the grass please... " ~ Scotty acting like God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #136 Share Posted April 30, 2021 25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: There is no Chapter 39. The versions you refer to were superseded. Even living in the past you're out if date. Chapter 29 is still in place in some jurisdiction: NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_39 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Well the resource I used shows 39. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #137 Share Posted April 30, 2021 23 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Invoking the royal we? We as a collective on the land being in the waters of legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #138 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Dreamer screamer said: https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_39 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Well the resource I used shows 39. It was superseded. Quote King Henry III was old enough to make a personal commitment to rule in accordance with the rules set out in Magna Carta. This became the definitive version of Magna Carta, and it was issued by Henry III in his own name. Dated 1225 https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/magna-carta-1225-westminster/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #139 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Quote you can disagree as much as you want. You’d still be wrong. Quote Because understanding and usage of language evolves. You might notice that we din’t use “thee, thy and thou” anymore, as one wee example. I would argue doesn't evolve, langage is mixed with other languages. It's just like a massive puzzle language, take a 1 million piece puzzle and just throw all the pieces in the air, this is how they use language and words. It is a well know fact that definitions change to suit the agenda though. 16 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: Because understanding and usage of language evolves. You might notice that we din’t use “thee, thy and thou” anymore, as one wee example. and I may be mistaken, but some verses and chapters were added later because that’s when they were discovered (Dead Sea Scrolls and so forth and such similar events). Or it was politically expedient to leave them out of previous translations. Or the translator didn’t like them. Still the same alphabet though. 16 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #140 Share Posted April 30, 2021 5 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_39 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Well the resource I used shows 39. From your resource: Quote The 1225 Charter was clearly superior for it was now a consensual document, part of a bargain between the king and his kingdom. https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_copies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 30, 2021 Author #141 Share Posted April 30, 2021 45 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said: Pardon me, and I apologise. I really meant the pile up on China as a whole. It's not the people, but the polititions that are the problem. I think, and then set me off. So sorry OverSword, my ego was set free for a moment. Thanks for making me realize it. Cheers, Hank Cage that ego son! Ego never done no good for no body!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #142 Share Posted April 30, 2021 7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: It was superseded. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/magna-carta-1225-westminster/ supersede verb : to take the place of (someone or something that is old, no longer useful, etc.) : to replace (someone or something) Believe it or not this is still in use today because it is legal and lawful , meaning GOD gave it to us for our protection as a legal PERSON!! We are still using it today for people to go to court and have a jury of 12 decide the case of guilty and not guilty. So this makes you wrong if this is the defintitio you used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #143 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Just now, Dreamer screamer said: supersede verb : to take the place of (someone or something that is old, no longer useful, etc.) : to replace (someone or something) Believe it or not this is still in use today because it is legal and lawful , meaning GOD gave it to us for our protection as a legal PERSON!! We are still using it today for people to go to court and have a jury of 12 decide the case of guilty and not guilty. So this makes you wrong if this is the defintitio you used. Chapter 29 is the clause still used today. I've already shown you the definitive and superior version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankenhunter Posted April 30, 2021 #144 Share Posted April 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, OverSword said: Cage that ego son! Ego never done no good for no body!! Yep, nothing worse than hoisting your own petard. I'm proof of that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #145 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Golden Duck said: From your resource: https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_copies No, 39 is still in play today. Government can't repeal this because they have no authority over GOD as soveriegn. Parliament is the kings and queens legal self as the crown because the magna carta reduced the powers of the kings and queens. Why they created persons, through parliament. However, https://creationism.org/BibleUKJV/59Jam02.htm 2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. The bible has the highest power on land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #146 Share Posted April 30, 2021 Just now, Golden Duck said: Chapter 29 is the clause still used today. I've already shown you the definitive and superior version. 29 No constable is to distrain any knight to give money instead of performing castle-guard, if he is willing to perform that guard in person, or, if he is unable to do it for a satisfactory reason, through another reliable man. And if we have led or sent him in the army, he is to be quit of castle-guard in proportion to the time he is in the army at our behest. If a constable broke the principle I am sure he/she would be arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #147 Share Posted April 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said: No, 39 is still in play today. Government can't repeal this because they have no authority over GOD as soveriegn. Parliament is the kings and queens legal self as the crown because the magna carta reduced the powers of the kings and queens. Why they created persons, through parliament. However, https://creationism.org/BibleUKJV/59Jam02.htm 2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. The bible has the highest power on land. You are reading the superseded version. Even the resource you provide confirms this. A Federal Court Justice clear explains it: Quote The most influential provisions of the 1215 charter, c 39 and 40, have survived as c 29 of the 1225 charter and its reissues. Only c 29 survives in the substantive statute law of four Australian State and Territory jurisdictions, and as the received law in the other three States and Territory[5]. As translated from the original Latin, c 29 reads[6]: “NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”[7] https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20151009 Justice Rares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted April 30, 2021 #148 Share Posted April 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: You are reading the superseded version. Even the resource you provide confirms this. A Federal Court Justice clear explains it: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20151009 Justice Rares “NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”[7] 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Can you see the problem????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted April 30, 2021 #149 Share Posted April 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Dreamer screamer said: “NO free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”[7] 39 No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Can you see the problem????? Possibly that you're sitting down and stuff keeps going over your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreamer screamer Posted May 1, 2021 #150 Share Posted May 1, 2021 53 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Possibly that you're sitting down and stuff keeps going over your head? I like your arrogance, but if you can't see it then Clearly gone right over yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now