Bible Translations: Which do You Use? Your Church?
Berkeley Brett
I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
translation(s) your church use(s).
For convenience, here is a list of many of the most widely-used
English translations of the Bible. I have listed them from earliest
to latest. If there are any that you would like to include that are
not listed here, please feel free to do so.
Major English Translations of the Bible*
D-R - Douay-Rheims Bible (1610)
AV (or KJV) - King James Version, or Authorized Version (1611)
RV - Revised Version (1885)
ASV - American Standard Version (1901)
JPS - [Old Testament] Jewish Publication Soc of America Ver. (1917)
RSV - Revised Standard Version (1952)
Phil - Phillips New Testament in Modern English (1958)
JB - Jerusalem Bible (1966)
NEB - New English Bible (1970)
NAB - New American Bible (1970)
NASB - New American Standard Bible (1971)
TLB - The Living Bible [a paraphrase, not a translation] (1971)
GNB - Good News Bible (1976)
NIV - New International Version (1978)
NKJV - New King James Version (1982)
NJB - New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
NJPS - [Old Testament] New Jewish Publication Soc of America Ver.
(1985)
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version (1989)
REB - Revised English Bible (1989)
CEV - Contemporary English Version (1995)
ESV - English Standard Version (2001)
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004)
TNIV - Today's New International Version (2005)
Some other translations are listed in these two Wikipedia** articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations
*Note this list omits translations into Old English or Middle English;
it also omits significant partial translations, such as the
historically significant partial translation of William Tyndale http//
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible A broader historical perspective
on English translations of the Christian Bible will be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible
**Wikipedia is a user-maintained online encyclopedia which any user
can edit. I have made many edits to Wikipedia myself, and you could
if you wished to. The curiosity of Wikipedia is that one would expect
such an encyclopedia to be full of errors -- but in fact, at least on
many subjects, it is surprisingly accurate. Here is an interesting
BBC article on accuracy and Wikipedia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Thank you in advance for your feedback!
Sincerely,
--
Brett
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Neo
>Hello friends:
>
>I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
>Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
>translation(s) your church use(s).
>
>For convenience, here is a list of many of the most widely-used
>English translations of the Bible. I have listed them from earliest
>to latest. If there are any that you would like to include that are
>not listed here, please feel free to do so.
>
>Major English Translations of the Bible
>
>AV (or KJV) - King James Version, or Authorized Version (1611)
>RV - Revised Version (1885)
>ASV - American Standard Version (1901)
>(1917)
>RSV - Revised Standard Version (1952)
>Phil - Phillips New Testament in Modern English (1958)
>JB - Jerusalem Bible (1966)
>NEB - New English Bible (1970)
>NAB - New American Bible (1970)
>NASB - New American Standard Bible (1971)
>TLB - The Living Bible [a paraphrase, not a translation] (1971)
>GNB - Good News Bible (1976)
>NIV - New International Version (1978)
>NKJV - New King James Version (1982)
>NJB - New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
>Version (1985)
>NRSV - New Revised Standard Version (1989)
>REB - Revised English Bible (1989)
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations
>
>Thank you in advance for your feedback!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>--
>Brett
>http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
>"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
>Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have found the Latin Vulgate and LXX to be the most scrupulous
translations. Not meaning to sound overly critical, but even the
best English versions are, comparatively speaking, "dumbed-down".
The freeware http://www.onlinebible.net/downloads.html has most
all of the popular translations, and oldest extant copies of the
original texts, plenty of reference sources, basic lexicons, etc.
OLB's program interface is very nice, too. I highly recommend it.
That said, I think the old King James Authorised Version is one
of the best simple English translations, mainly because it gets
the general point across in a more "hellfire and brimstone" way,
i.e., more in the spirit of its original authors (here in Hell).
I don't like some of these newer "kinder and gentler" so-called
translations, because not only are they completely "dumbed-down"
but are obfuscated to the point of Anti-Christian brainwashing.
And that's also the reason I never attend synagogue, or church,
because, to use a famous analogy, I unplugged from 'The Matrix'.
But if I were stranded on a desert island with only one book to
read, it would definitely be the Latin Vulgate.
Armageddon Cometh,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBR8DfepljD7YrHM/nEQKFVQCgpaLjlc3VwRA/8mc9caBjDKkLA/YAn0ga
gbISQrGafWoXD2ZHthh3nNXH
=6K3p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Your reason to add alt.atheism and all the other newsgroups to the
headers, was, moron?
Olrik
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hello friends:
>
> >I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
> >Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
> >translation(s) your church use(s).
So you're admitting that your "god" is a complete failure.
Olrik
<snip>
Berkeley Brett
Berkeley Brett
Perhaps you can clarify?
Thanks.
Berkeley Brett
-- presented by a certain Rev. Keith H. McIlwain, apparently a
Wesleyan pastor (?):
http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/bible_translations.html
"Pastor Keith's" main page:
http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/atonement.html
Though I am hardly in a position to evaluate his individual numeric
ratings of the different versions -- I simply note two things about
his treatment that (to me) are interesting:
1) He seems to have positive things to say about most of the
translations -- if he maintained that all but one of them are the work
of the devil, I would be less convinced of his objectivity!
2) His "Dynamic Equivalence" continuum (in the arrow graphic:
http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/bible_translations.jpg ) is
interesting. I am certainly more interested in "thought for thought"
accuracy than "word for word" accuracy.
Matt BKs
<Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, I found this rather interesting webpage on the subject
>-- presented by a certain Rev. Keith H. McIlwain, apparently a
>Wesleyan pastor (?):
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/bible_translations.html
Thanks for the link I found it very interesting.
God Bless
Matt
>
>"Pastor Keith's" main page:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/atonement.html
>
>Though I am hardly in a position to evaluate his individual numeric
>ratings of the different versions -- I simply note two things about
>his treatment that (to me) are interesting:
>
>1) He seems to have positive things to say about most of the
>translations -- if he maintained that all but one of them are the work
>of the devil, I would be less convinced of his objectivity!
>
>2) His "Dynamic Equivalence" continuum (in the arrow graphic:
>http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/bible_translations.jpg ) is
>interesting. I am certainly more interested in "thought for thought"
>accuracy than "word for word" accuracy.
2 Peter 1:2
Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
John Locke
wrote:
Yes.."god" failed to show himself on earth and present the material
to the writers that should be included into one precise book. The book
of "God". You'd think that since this book was important that "God"
would have made effort to make sure that it was produced properly
and accurately.
Another good argument for the non-existence of "God".
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
leig...@optusnet.com.au
> all of the popular translations, and oldest extant copies of the
> original texts, plenty of reference sources, basic lexicons, etc.
> OLB's program interface is very nice, too. I highly recommend it.
>
> That said, I think the old King James Authorised Version is one
> of the best simple English translations, mainly because it gets
> the general point across in a more "hellfire and brimstone" way,
> i.e., more in the spirit of its original authors (here in Hell).
>
> I don't like some of these newer "kinder and gentler" so-called
> translations, because not only are they completely "dumbed-down"
> but are obfuscated to the point of Anti-Christian brainwashing.
> And that's also the reason I never attend synagogue, or church,
> because, to use a famous analogy, I unplugged from 'The Matrix'.
>
> But if I were stranded on a desert island with only one book to
> read, it would definitely be the Latin Vulgate.
>
> Armageddon Cometh,
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBR8DfepljD7YrHM/nEQKFVQCgpaLjlc3VwRA/8mc9caBjDKkLA/YAn0ga
> gbISQrGafWoXD2ZHthh3nNXH
> =6K3p
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Oh but is hard to discern what has been omitted and what has been
added and what removed, but myth is greater than truth or honesty.
LB
Right through Middle Eastern and Ancient Legend the Idea the of the
Great Heroes of mankind Couldn't possibly have been mere mortals,
they had to be offspring of Gods is commonplace throughout which
means the Christian story is another version of that old Legend.
AC Grayling
Smiler
"Neo" <take...@red.pill> wrote in message
news:0406323dd7dac5fe...@nymkey.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Hello friends:
>>
>>I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
>>Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
>>translation(s) your church use(s).
None.
I would make houseroom for any of those pieces of crap and I don't have a
church.
Now, please explain what other answer you expected from an atheism group,
moron.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
guardian Snow
> I have found the Latin Vulgate and LXX to be the most scrupulous
> translations. Not meaning to sound overly critical, but even the
> best English versions are, comparatively speaking, "dumbed-down".
> The freeware http://www.onlinebible.net/downloads.html has most
> all of the popular translations, and oldest extant copies of the
> original texts, plenty of reference sources, basic lexicons, etc.
> OLB's program interface is very nice, too. I highly recommend it.
>
> That said, I think the old King James Authorised Version is one
> of the best simple English translations, mainly because it gets
> the general point across in a more "hellfire and brimstone" way,
> i.e., more in the spirit of its original authors (here in Hell).
>
> I don't like some of these newer "kinder and gentler" so-called
> translations, because not only are they completely "dumbed-down"
> but are obfuscated to the point of Anti-Christian brainwashing.
> And that's also the reason I never attend synagogue, or church,
> because, to use a famous analogy, I unplugged from 'The Matrix'.
>
> But if I were stranded on a desert island with only one book to
> read, it would definitely be the Latin Vulgate.
>
> Armageddon Cometh,
> Daniel Joseph Min
> http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/
To many degrees I can agree with you about "new" versions of the
scriptures. I disagree with your "unplugging" from church and would
point out that you can't expect to change the hearts of those
Christians unless you at least attempt to attend.
Mat 28:19 “Therefore, go and make taught ones of all the nations,
immersing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Set-
apart Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to guard all that I have commanded you. And
see, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Amĕn.
Personally, I prefer E-sword that is also freeware. http://www.e-sword.net/
I've come to love a modern version that really is different in all
respects that you addressed. (Scriptures +1998) http://www.isr-messianic.org/
Examples from this version:
Mat 5:22 “But I say to you that whoever is wroth with his brother
without a cause shall be liable to judgment. And whoever says to his
brother, ‘Raka!’ shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says,
‘You fool!’ shall be liable to fire of Gehenna.
Mat 16:17 And יהושע answering, said to him, “Blessed are you, Shimʽon
Bar-Yonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My
Father in the heavens.
Mat 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Kĕpha, and on this rock
I shall build My assembly, and the gates of the grave shall not
overcome it.
Shalom,
Snow
You're never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you're
never as bad as they say when you lose.
Lou Holtz
James
>Re: Bible Translations: Which do You Use? Your Church?
Smiler,
Have you ever personally studied the Bible with an open mind? Perhaps
you overlooked something. Or do you just listen to what others say
about it, and take their word for it?
For example, when I first started studying the Bible, I was amazed at
how accurate its science statements were, since I am a lover of
science. (also quite relieved, since if the Bible is really from God
(2 Ti 3:16), it has to have accurate science statements)
So if you don't mind letting me know why you believe the way you do, I
would be interested to know.
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
panam...@hotmail.com
snip
> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
> do not follow ng threads
Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
up your ass.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Mike
> Smiler,
>
> Have you ever personally studied the Bible with an open mind? Perhaps
> you overlooked something. Or do you just listen to what others say
> about it, and take their word for it?
>
> For example, when I first started studying the Bible, I was amazed at
> how accurate its science statements were, since I am a lover of
> science. (also quite relieved, since if the Bible is really from God
> (2 Ti 3:16), it has to have accurate science statements)
>
> So if you don't mind letting me know why you believe the way you do, I
> would be interested to know.
>
> Sincerely, James
James,
I don't know about Smiler, but you'll find that MANY American
atheists started life as believers. Speaking for myself, I was a
ferverent believer until about age 14 when I decided to read the bible
carefully. Naturally, a careful study of the bible is the best cure
for belief that can be imagined.
Have you actually read the book? Don't you know that the OT
portrays God as a vengeful psychopathic sadist who punishes those who
offend him with a sadistic relish beyond the capacity of mere human
tyrants like Stalin or Vlad the Impaler or Hitler or Saddam Hussein or
Pol Pot, etc. According to the Assholy Book, God sent bears to devour
children for the sin of laughing at Elijah's baldness. LOL!
So tell me, Jehovah's Witless bible-thumper. Which, if any, of
the following propositions do you disagree with.
1) Homosexual acts should be punished by death.
2) Working on the Sabbath should be punished by death.
3) When you need to defecate you should walk a proscribed distance
from your settlement and take with you a wooden paddle so as to bury a
hole in the ground, shit in the hole, and cover up the poop
afterwards.
4) When an act of bestiality occurs, the victimized animal should be
put to death as well as the human pervert.
5) A bride who turns out not to be a virgin on her wedding night
should be put to death.
6) Adultery should be punished by death.
If you do not enthusiastically agree with ALL of the above injunctions
then you are not a believer of the bible.
Just for laughs tell me about the "accurate science" you think you
have found in the bible. But wait until I get popcorn.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
>> do not follow ng threads
>
>Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
>up your ass.
Did you email this to the coward?
The thing that turned off standard email etiquette for me, was a
cow-Yorker in the early 1990s who was a well-known alt.atheism and
talk.origins loonie.
On an internal bulletin board, he posted some standard fundy crap
which I demolished. He privately emailed me acknowledging some of his
mistakes. But publicly kept repeating them. In my naivety I kept quiet
because I still regarded email as private.
These days when one of them is particularly stupid they get posted.
>-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Mike
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >snip
>
> >> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
> >> do not follow ng threads
>
> >Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
> >up your ass.
>
> Did you email this to the coward?
>
> The thing that turned off standard email etiquette for me, was a
> cow-Yorker in the early 1990s who was a well-known alt.atheism and
> talk.origins loonie.
>
> On an internal bulletin board, he posted some standard fundy crap
> which I demolished. He privately emailed me acknowledging some of his
> mistakes. But publicly kept repeating them.
Ah yes. The intellectual integrity of a typical fundy.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Smiler,
>>
>> Have you ever personally studied the Bible with an open mind? Perhaps
>> you overlooked something. Or do you just listen to what others say
>> about it, and take their word for it?
What a fucking moron.
These idiots seem to imagine "open mind" means "forcing yourself to
believe it".
It's the same mentality as a friend who was a UFO nut. You only had to
believe and everything would fall into place. People who didn't were
also "closed minded".
>> For example, when I first started studying the Bible, I was amazed at
>> how accurate its science statements were, since I am a lover of
>> science. (also quite relieved, since if the Bible is really from God
>> (2 Ti 3:16), it has to have accurate science statements)
A liar as well as an idiot. And sociopathic to boot for quoting the
Bible as "proof" of anything to people he knows don't share his
beliefs.
>> So if you don't mind letting me know why you believe the way you do, I
>> would be interested to know.
>>
>> Sincerely, James
>
>James,
>
> I don't know about Smiler, but you'll find that MANY American
>atheists started life as believers. Speaking for myself, I was a
>ferverent believer until about age 14 when I decided to read the bible
>carefully. Naturally, a careful study of the bible is the best cure
>for belief that can be imagined.
Exactly.
Although Smiler is English and AFAIR like me he is an atheist of the
never-been-theist variety.
> Have you actually read the book? Don't you know that the OT
>portrays God as a vengeful psychopathic sadist who punishes those who
>offend him with a sadistic relish beyond the capacity of mere human
>tyrants like Stalin or Vlad the Impaler or Hitler or Saddam Hussein or
>Pol Pot, etc. According to the Assholy Book, God sent bears to devour
>children for the sin of laughing at Elijah's baldness. LOL!
But you're not reading it with what the Liars For God call an "open
mind".
> So tell me, Jehovah's Witless bible-thumper. Which, if any, of
>the following propositions do you disagree with.
One of them. That explains it.
>1) Homosexual acts should be punished by death.
>2) Working on the Sabbath should be punished by death.
>3) When you need to defecate you should walk a proscribed distance
>from your settlement and take with you a wooden paddle so as to bury a
>hole in the ground, shit in the hole, and cover up the poop
>afterwards.
>4) When an act of bestiality occurs, the victimized animal should be
>put to death as well as the human pervert.
Those poor Aussie sheep.
>5) A bride who turns out not to be a virgin on her wedding night
>should be put to death.
>6) Adultery should be punished by death.
>
>If you do not enthusiastically agree with ALL of the above injunctions
>then you are not a believer of the bible.
>
> Just for laughs tell me about the "accurate science" you think you
>have found in the bible. But wait until I get popcorn.
They get their "science" from the Watchtower. So it's hardly
surprising the Wholly Babble agrees with it.
SkyEyes
> >"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
> >Re: Bible Translations: Which do You Use? Your Church?
>
> >news:0406323dd7dac5fe...@nymkey.com...
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Hello friends:
>
> >>>I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
> >>>Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
> >>>translation(s) your church use(s).
>
> >None.
> >I would make houseroom for any of those pieces of crap and I don't have a
> >church.
> >Now, please explain what other answer you expected from an atheism group,
> >moron.
>
> >Smiler,
> >The godless one
> >a.a.# 2279
>
> Smiler,
>
> Have you ever personally studied the Bible with an open mind? Perhaps
> you overlooked something. Or do you just listen to what others say
> about it, and take their word for it?
>
> For example, when I first started studying the Bible, I was amazed at
> how accurate its science statements were, since I am a lover of
> science. (also quite relieved, since if the Bible is really from God
> (2 Ti 3:16), it has to have accurate science statements)
>
> So if you don't mind letting me know why you believe the way you do, I
> would be interested to know.
>
> Sincerely, James
I can't answer for Smiler, but I'll answer for myself:
I was brought up a fundamentalist christian, and was born again at age
11.
I have read the bible all the way through several times - once a year
beginning the year I was 8. The last time I read it through was the
year I was 22.
I have read and owned several different translations, including but
not limited to the KJV and the Douay versions. I have read the bible
in German, Spanish, and modern ("Demotic") Greek, as a way of learning
the language.
Having provided you with my background, let me say this: the bible is
*nothing* but a book of Bronze and Iron Age mythology. It is *not*
historically accurate. It is *not* scientifically accurate (the
science presented in the bible is representative of the state of
science around 700 BCE). The bible is full of contractions and
inaccuracies.
Now, what were you saying about discussing the bible with someone who
has read it with an open mind...?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Panama Floyd
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >snip
>
> >> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
> >> do not follow ng threads
>
> >Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
> >up your ass.
>
> Did you email this to the coward?
I sent him a copy of the post. Let's see if the shitstain even used a
real address.
What the hell, let's send him this one too....<g>
This clown has done this before. I've sent him email before, and never
recieved a reply. Notice he's chosen a thread damn near a month old.
The only one that's allowed to do that shit around here is stoney,
dammit!
> The thing that turned off standard email etiquette for me, was a
> cow-Yorker in the early 1990s who was a well-known alt.atheism and
> talk.origins loonie.
>
> On an internal bulletin board, he posted some standard fundy crap
> which I demolished. He privately emailed me acknowledging some of his
> mistakes. But publicly kept repeating them. In my naivety I kept quiet
> because I still regarded email as private.
>
> These days when one of them is particularly stupid they get posted.
Oh, yes. Expose the cockroaches to the daylight.
-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
<panam...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 11, 2:08 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >snip
>>
>> >> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
>> >> do not follow ng threads
>>
>> >Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
>> >up your ass.
>>
>> Did you email this to the coward?
>
>I sent him a copy of the post. Let's see if the shitstain even used a
>real address.
>
>What the hell, let's send him this one too....<g>
>
>This clown has done this before. I've sent him email before, and never
>recieved a reply. Notice he's chosen a thread damn near a month old.
>The only one that's allowed to do that shit around here is stoney,
>dammit!
And he's got a reason - his and his wife's health problems.
I'd rather see him late than never.
But James is a coward who is afraid to use his rehearsed scripts where
they will get demolished.
Jackoff finally did the same.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:18:47 -0700 (PDT),PanamaFloyd
>
>
>
>
>
> <panamaf...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 2:08 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:53:55 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, James <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >> >snip
>
> >> >> **If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
> >> >> do not follow ng threads
>
> >> >Then why do you post to newsgroups, coward? Shove your spamming head
> >> >up your ass.
>
> >> Did you email this to the coward?
>
> >I sent him a copy of the post. Let's see if the shitstain even used a
> >real address.
>
> >What the hell, let's send him this one too....<g>
>
> >This clown has done this before. I've sent him email before, and never
> >recieved a reply. Notice he's chosen a thread damn near a month old.
> >The only one that's allowed to do that shit around here is stoney,
> >dammit!
>
> And he's got a reason - his and his wife's health problems.
>
> I'd rather see him late than never.
Right on! The group wouldn't be the same without him. I wonder if he's
done any new paintings. I really like the one he did of the Navy
oceangoing tug. I used to watch them putter around Chesapeake Bay, and
ol' stoney got the weathering just right. <g>
> But James is a coward who is afraid to use his rehearsed scripts where
> they will get demolished.
Just another vulture, hoping to ensnare a distressed person while
they're feeling down. What vermin they are.
> Jackoff finally did the same.
More power to `im. I hope he gets stuck in an avalanche.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Sugien
"James" <bir...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:n5kdt35qhmmjobl49...@4ax.com...
> >"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>
>
>>Re: Bible Translations: Which do You Use? Your Church?
>
>>
>>"Neo" <take...@red.pill> wrote in message
>>news:0406323dd7dac5fe...@nymkey.com...
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Hello friends:
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
>>>>Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
>>>>translation(s) your church use(s).
>>
>>None.
>>I would make houseroom for any of those pieces of crap and I don't have a
>>church.
>>Now, please explain what other answer you expected from an atheism group,
>>moron.
>>
use a little program called Greek to English translator; because it has a
bunch of other translations to cross study with as well as the ability to
create your own translations and save them out. It is free and if you would
like a copy of it as well as a good regular OT and NT study bible you can
download both here:
http://www.dino-soft.org/bible
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
. /}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
. \}
Gods Words Are my Strength and Sword
Dr. Barry Worthington
Two points, Mike. Firstly, outside of a small group of fundamentalists
and (largely American) religious nutters, mainstream Christians do not
give a great deal of weight to the Old Testament. It is the 'Old
Covenant' that the Gospel of Jesus transcends and replaces, and large
parts of it are discarded and ignored, mainly the parts that you quote
from. secondly, even in the O.T. the view of God varies. He is not, in
many passages, a vengeful God at all, but a loving father, or (in
Psalm 23) a loving shepherd who cares for his sheep.
>
> So tell me, Jehovah's Witless bible-thumper. Which, if any, of
> the following propositions do you disagree with.
>
> 1) Homosexual acts should be punished by death.
Mainstream Christians ignore Leviticus and similar writings.
> 2) Working on the Sabbath should be punished by death.
Christ ignored this injuction...he and his disciples broke all sorts
of Sabbath rules.....
> 3) When you need to defecate you should walk a proscribed distance
> from your settlement and take with you a wooden paddle so as to bury a
> hole in the ground, shit in the hole, and cover up the poop
> afterwards.
> 4) When an act of bestiality occurs, the victimized animal should be
> put to death as well as the human pervert.
> 5) A bride who turns out not to be a virgin on her wedding night
> should be put to death.
Yes, we ignore them. as Christ did....
> 6) Adultery should be punished by death.
And did not Christ use this as an example to show up the religious
hypocrites of his day?
>
> If you do not enthusiastically agree with ALL of the above injunctions
> then you are not a believer of the bible.
There is no such thing as a 'believer in the bible'. That statement is
close to idolatry. If you mean that the Scripture contains all that is
necessary for salvation......well, sorry, Christ, St.Paul, and most
Christians will tell you that this is rubbish......
Dr. Barry Worthington
Mike
wrote:
> > James,
>
> > I don't know about Smiler, but you'll find that MANY American
> > atheists started life as believers. Speaking for myself, I was a
> > ferverent believer until about age 14 when I decided to read the bible
> > carefully. Naturally, a careful study of the bible is the best cure
> > for belief that can be imagined.
>
> > Have you actually read the book? Don't you know that the OT
> > portrays God as a vengeful psychopathic sadist who punishes those who
> > offend him with a sadistic relish beyond the capacity of mere human
> > tyrants like Stalin or Vlad the Impaler or Hitler or Saddam Hussein or
> > Pol Pot, etc. According to the Assholy Book, God sent bears to devour
> > children for the sin of laughing at Elijah's baldness. LOL!
>
> Two points, Mike. Firstly, outside of a small group of fundamentalists
> and (largely American) religious nutters, mainstream Christians do not
> give a great deal of weight to the Old Testament. It is the 'Old
> Covenant' that the Gospel of Jesus transcends and replaces, and large
> parts of it are discarded and ignored, mainly the parts that you quote
> from.
It is not a "small group of fundamentalists". In America,
evangelical assholes are a LARGE group of people. Supposedly 48% of
Americans think they have been "born again". Where do you think all
the antigay hype comes from? Leviticus, not the NT. Except for two
slightly grumpy remarks of St. Paul, the NT doesn't even mention
homosexuality. Leviticus 19 is where it comes from --- the same
chapter that says to execute a bride if she turns out not to be a
virgin on her wedding night, the same chapter that says to kill
someone caught working on the sabbath, the same chapter that says to
stone adulterers to death, etc.
>secondly, even in the O.T. the view of God varies. He is not, in
> many passages, a vengeful God at all, but a loving father, or (in
> Psalm 23) a loving shepherd who cares for his sheep.
This is true. The OT is inconsistent in its portrayal of God.
> > So tell me, Jehovah's Witless bible-thumper. Which, if any, of
> > the following propositions do you disagree with.
>
> > 1) Homosexual acts should be punished by death.
>
> Mainstream Christians ignore Leviticus and similar writings.
Here in the US, many xians don't ignore Leviticus.
> > 2) Working on the Sabbath should be punished by death.
>
> Christ ignored this injuction...he and his disciples broke all sorts
> of Sabbath rules.....
That is true.
> > 3) When you need to defecate you should walk a proscribed distance
> > from your settlement and take with you a wooden paddle so as to bury a
> > hole in the ground, shit in the hole, and cover up the poop
> > afterwards.
> > 4) When an act of bestiality occurs, the victimized animal should be
> > put to death as well as the human pervert.
> > 5) A bride who turns out not to be a virgin on her wedding night
> > should be put to death.
>
> Yes, we ignore them. as Christ did....
>
> > 6) Adultery should be punished by death.
>
> And did not Christ use this as an example to show up the religious
> hypocrites of his day?
>
>
>
> > If you do not enthusiastically agree with ALL of the above injunctions
> > then you are not a believer of the bible.
>
> There is no such thing as a 'believer in the bible'. That statement is
> close to idolatry. If you mean that the Scripture contains all that is
> necessary for salvation......well, sorry, Christ, St.Paul, and most
> Christians will tell you that this is rubbish......
Personally, I think any kind of religious belief is irrational. But
I'm glad to see that you are not a hardass fundy idiot like too many
American christians. Would you please write a letter to George W
Bush, Mike Huckabee, and the entire population of Kansas that much of
the OT is a bunch of barbaric stupid garbage that should be ignored.
But don't be too lenient with the NT. I'll grant that, for the most
part, the NT has a kinder attitude than the OT. But as Christopher
Hitchens likes to point out, the OT does not threaten you with eternal
damnation. God may abuse you with sadistic relish whilst you live,
but at least you can then die. In fact the OT says virtually nothing
about an afterlife. The threat of fire and brimstone begins with
gentle Jesus meek and mild. "Fear he who hath power to cast thee into
eternal flames". What an obscenely evil and stupid religious
conception.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Mar 14, 4:11 pm, "Dr.BarryWorthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 6:07 pm, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > > James,
>
> > > I don't know about Smiler, but you'll find that MANY American
> > > atheists started life as believers. Speaking for myself, I was a
> > > ferverent believer until about age 14 when I decided to read the bible
> > > carefully. Naturally, a careful study of the bible is the best cure
> > > for belief that can be imagined.
>
> > > Have you actually read the book? Don't you know that the OT
> > > portrays God as a vengeful psychopathic sadist who punishes those who
> > > offend him with a sadistic relish beyond the capacity of mere human
> > > tyrants like Stalin or Vlad the Impaler or Hitler or Saddam Hussein or
> > > Pol Pot, etc. According to the Assholy Book, God sent bears to devour
> > > children for the sin of laughing at Elijah's baldness. LOL!
>
> > Two points, Mike. Firstly, outside of a small group of fundamentalists
> > and (largely American) religious nutters, mainstream Christians do not
> > give a great deal of weight to the Old Testament. It is the 'Old
> > Covenant' that the Gospel of Jesus transcends and replaces, and large
> > parts of it are discarded and ignored, mainly the parts that you quote
> > from.
>
> It is not a "small group of fundamentalists". In America,
> evangelical assholes are a LARGE group of people. Supposedly 48% of
> Americans think they have been "born again".
Yes, it's largely an American phenomenon. The problem is that in days
gone by, American foreign policy tended to be made by an educated East
Coast elite. They made mistakes, for sure, but they did do things in
ways that most of us could understand. Now, the inmates have taken
over the asylum, and the religious nutters do need putting in their
place.
Well, we are all 'irrational' in some way or other. Falling in love
may be seen as an irrational act.....
> But
> I'm glad to see that you are not a hardass fundy idiot like too many
> American christians.
But most mainstream Christians hold similar views to myself! (That's
not egotism, by the way, just an indication that my point of view is
mainstream....)
>Would you please write a letter to George W
> Bush, Mike Huckabee, and the entire population of Kansas that much of
> the OT is a bunch of barbaric stupid garbage that should be ignored.
I rather think that American Christians ought to do that...)
> But don't be too lenient with the NT. I'll grant that, for the most
> part, the NT has a kinder attitude than the OT. But as Christopher
> Hitchens likes to point out, the OT does not threaten you with eternal
> damnation. God may abuse you with sadistic relish whilst you live,
> but at least you can then die. In fact the OT says virtually nothing
> about an afterlife.
That isn't strictly true....as OT scholars will tell you.
>The threat of fire and brimstone begins with
> gentle Jesus meek and mild. "Fear he who hath power to cast thee into
> eternal flames".
Where does this quotation come from? I'd like a citation, please.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>What an obscenely evil and stupid religious
> conception.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike
wrote:
> On Mar 15, 4:28 am, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> >Would you please write a letter to George W
> > Bush, Mike Huckabee, and the entire population of Kansas that much of
> > the OT is a bunch of barbaric stupid garbage that should be ignored.
>
> I rather think that American Christians ought to do that...)
Agreed. But they don't. Moderate xians ignore the large minority of
right wing christards. Rather the way moderate Muslims refrain from
criticizing the fundamentalist wingnuts.
> > But don't be too lenient with the NT. I'll grant that, for the most
> > part, the NT has a kinder attitude than the OT. But as Christopher
> > Hitchens likes to point out, the OT does not threaten you with eternal
> > damnation. God may abuse you with sadistic relish whilst you live,
> > but at least you can then die. In fact the OT says virtually nothing
> > about an afterlife.
>
> That isn't strictly true....as OT scholars will tell you.
>
> >The threat of fire and brimstone begins with
>
> > gentle Jesus meek and mild. "Fear he who hath power to cast thee into
> > eternal flames".
>
> Where does this quotation come from? I'd like a citation, please.
Luke 12,5 for starters. I can find several other similar verses in
Matthew and Luke (Less in Mark and John if I remember correctly).
pba...@worldonline.nl
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hello friends:
>
> >I wonder if you would mind sharing with us which translation(s) of the
> >Bible you use in your own study and devotions, and which
> >translation(s) your church use(s).
>
> translations. Not meaning to sound overly critical, but even the
> best English versions are, comparatively speaking, "dumbed-down".
> all of the popular translations, and oldest extant copies of the
> original texts, plenty of reference sources, basic lexicons, etc.
> OLB's program interface is very nice, too. I highly recommend it.
>
> That said, I think the old King James Authorised Version is one
> of the best simple English translations, mainly because it gets
> the general point across in a more "hellfire and brimstone" way,
> i.e., more in the spirit of its original authors (here in Hell).
>
> I don't like some of these newer "kinder and gentler" so-called
> translations, because not only are they completely "dumbed-down"
> but are obfuscated to the point of Anti-Christian brainwashing.
> And that's also the reason I never attend synagogue, or church,
> because, to use a famous analogy, I unplugged from 'The Matrix'.
>
> But if I were stranded on a desert island with only one book to
> read, it would definitely be the Latin Vulgate.
>
> Armageddon Cometh,
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBR8DfepljD7YrHM/nEQKFVQCgpaLjlc3VwRA/8mc9caBjDKkLA/YAn0ga
> gbISQrGafWoXD2ZHthh3nNXH
> =6K3p
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Sorry the theologists at our chessclub, (he is a real minister!)
explaiined to me, that the King James version isn't very reliable, and
contains many translating errors.
Translations that use Greek text as a bases are an the whole much more
reliable bevause the Vulgata being a translation from Greek sources
itself nescessairily misses some points as words in one language do
not always have exacts counterparts in another language.
Take the Dutch word "Wetenschap"
in English it can both be translated as "Science" and as "Knowledge".
We have a Dutch alternative for knowledge: "Kennis", but we do not
have an alternative for Science. so if you translated an English text
containing the word "Science" into Dutch. The result: "wetenschap" is
bound to have a uncertain meanihg, unless you are helped " the
context.
That is if you do not accept that "Science" and "knowledge" are in
fact the same thing. My observation is that theists do not consider
them to be the same.
Best of luck with your defective bible translation!
Peter van Velzen
March 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Mar 17, 3:25 am, "Dr.BarryWorthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 4:28 am, Mike <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote:
>
> > >Would you please write a letter to George W
> > > Bush, Mike Huckabee, and the entire population of Kansas that much of
> > > the OT is a bunch of barbaric stupid garbage that should be ignored.
>
> > I rather think that American Christians ought to do that...)
>
> Agreed. But they don't. Moderate xians ignore the large minority of
> right wing christards. Rather the way moderate Muslims refrain from
> criticizing the fundamentalist wingnuts.
Indeed.
>
> > > But don't be too lenient with the NT. I'll grant that, for the most
> > > part, the NT has a kinder attitude than the OT. But as Christopher
> > > Hitchens likes to point out, the OT does not threaten you with eternal
> > > damnation. God may abuse you with sadistic relish whilst you live,
> > > but at least you can then die. In fact the OT says virtually nothing
> > > about an afterlife.
>
> > That isn't strictly true....as OT scholars will tell you.
>
> > >The threat of fire and brimstone begins with
>
> > > gentle Jesus meek and mild. "Fear he who hath power to cast thee into
> > > eternal flames".
>
> > Where does this quotation come from? I'd like a citation, please.
>
> Luke 12,5 for starters.
It doesn't say anything about 'eternal flames'. The word used in the
original translation is hell. It is a substitute word for 'gehenna',
which is the original meaning in hebrew or aramaic, and meant
something slightly different.
("Gehenna, or gehenom or gehinom (גהינום), is the Jewish hell or
purgatory. In Judaism hell is a place of purification and fire for the
wicked, most being punished there up to a year but some for
eternity." C/f Wikipedia)
You are to fear (honour and respect, in other words) him who 'has the
power to cast you into gehenna'......God. That's what is meant.
spacegamer777
I like using the New International Version and New Living
Translation. I know lots of people claim the KJV is the only bible to
read but I don't buy that. I want to read the bible using todays
language.
If I was stranded on an island I would pick the New Living
Translation.
Dubh Ghall
Why?
Is the paper softer, to wipe your bum on, or does it start a fire
better?
I think that if I was stranded on an island, I would want something a
little more practical than a book of myths.
Azure Kite
news:kbv2u35vko510h1fv...@4ax.com...
Diana and I lowered the bar dramatically, because we know the vast amount of
idiocy that religion has perpetrated.The consequences of this is being
liable to Revelation 20:6 (interestingly enough my apartment number is 602)
602. apokalupsis ap-ok-al'-oop-sis from 601; disclosure:--appearing, coming,
lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.
Why pass up a free gift?What does refusing to process the convergences I
have documented gain you?
Linda Lee
wrote:
He neglected to also tell you there is not a Bible version on the
market that does not contain errors. The ASV, the ISV, The Scriptures
(IRS), the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Scholars Version (completely
error-ridden and atrocious, adding any words they feel like) etc. all
contain errors.
A few of the KJV's words are outmoded (for example 'dissembled',
meaning "to act hypocritically in concert with", and which is still in
English dictionaries), but the KJV contains few errors and puts in
italics words added for clarity, which many versions don't bother to
do. The KJV is a great version, and in my opinion, still the best.
It's worst flaw is it translates paschal/passover as Easter.
Dubh Ghall
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:
>A few of the KJV's words are outmoded (for example 'dissembled',
>meaning "to act hypocritically in concert with", and which is still in
>English dictionaries), but the KJV contains few errors and puts in
>italics words added for clarity, which many versions don't bother to
>do. The KJV is a great version, and in my opinion, still the best.
>It's worst flaw is it translates paschal/passover as Easter.
What is strange, is that Acts 12:4, is the only incidence of "pascha",
that is translated that way, and even the new KJV, dated 1985, retains
it.
Dubh Ghall
<hanar...@archangels.mil> wrote:
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:kbv2u35vko510h1fv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT), spacegamer777
>> <spaceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 23, 11:00 pm, Neo <take....@red.pill> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >Hello friends:
>>>>
>snip
>>>
>>>If I was stranded on an island I would pick the New Living
>>>Translation.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Is the paper softer, to wipe your bum on, or does it start a fire
>> better?
>>
>> I think that if I was stranded on an island, I would want something a
>> little more practical than a book of myths.
>>
>
>
>Diana and I lowered the bar dramatically, because we know the vast amount of
>idiocy that religion has perpetrated.
Not least of which, is x-posting this to an atheist NG.
>The consequences of this is being
>liable to Revelation 20:6 (interestingly enough my apartment number is 602)
>
>602. apokalupsis ap-ok-al'-oop-sis from 601; disclosure:--appearing, coming,
>lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.
>
>Why pass up a free gift?
The price is too high.
Linda Lee
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee
>
Not so strange, but it is wrong. They are probably reluctant to
interfere with the already existing huge Easter celebration. They tied
Easter to the resurrection of the Messiah because Eastre was a dawn
goddess, and apparently they believed the resurrection signified the
dawn of a new era, so they felt the meaning of the name of the
'goddess' Eastre was appropriate to signify the resurrection.
Azure Kite
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:26:11 -0500, "Azure Kite"
> <hanar...@archangels.mil> wrote:
>
>>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>>news:kbv2u35vko510h1fv...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT), spacegamer777
>>> <spaceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 23, 11:00 pm, Neo <take....@red.pill> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Berkeley Brett <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Hello friends:
>>>>>
>>snip
>>>>
>>>>If I was stranded on an island I would pick the New Living
>>>>Translation.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Is the paper softer, to wipe your bum on, or does it start a fire
>>> better?
>>>
>>> I think that if I was stranded on an island, I would want something a
>>> little more practical than a book of myths.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Diana and I lowered the bar dramatically, because we know the vast amount
>>of
>>idiocy that religion has perpetrated.
>
> Not least of which, is x-posting this to an atheist NG.
>
it-he loves to crosspost threads through atheism
>
>
>>The consequences of this is being
>>liable to Revelation 20:6 (interestingly enough my apartment number is
>>602)
>>
>>602. apokalupsis ap-ok-al'-oop-sis from 601; disclosure:--appearing,
>>coming,
>>lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.
>>
>>Why pass up a free gift?
>
> The price is too high.
>
>
Well fortunately the penalty is not hellfire or any of that stuff, thats for
anti-christs and sinister souls, not mere unbelievers.
For you, just nothingness after death.And those with you.
I'll stay away from your group for a while, I have said my piece.
IN the meatnime I'll be dealing with the childish bullies hanging out in the
christian groups.
"Azure Kite" <hanar...@archangels.mil> wrote in message
news:frqbar$msm$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> http://www.pcsudbury.org/Sermons/070603.html
>
> Psalm 42.7
> Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls;
> all your waves and breakers have swept over me
> Psalm 63.7
> Because you are my help,I sing in the shadow of your wings
> Psalm 115.7
> They have hands, but cannot feel
> feet, but they cannot walk;
> nor can they utter a sound
> with their THROATS
>
> .//////////////////
> My cell number
> 800-6978
>
> 800 'eshshah esh-shaw' feminine of 784; fire:--fire
> 6957 qav kav or qav {kawv}; from 6960 (Compare 6961); a cord (as
> connecting), especially for measuring; figuratively, a rule; also a rim, a
> musical string or accord:--line. Compare 6978.
> 6978 qav-qav kav-kav' from 6957 (in the sense of a fastening);
> stalwart:--X meted out.
>
>
> Vicki 63.7
> Van 42.7/63.7
> Meter 52
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> To everything (turn, turn, turn)
> There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
> And a time for every purpose, under heaven
>
> A time to be born, a time to die
> A time to plant, a time to reap
> A time to kill, a time to heal
> A time to laugh, a time to weep
>
> To everything (turn, turn, turn)
> There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
> And a time for every purpose, under heaven
>
> A time to build up,a time to break down
> A time to dance, a time to mourn
> A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together
>
> To everything (turn, turn, turn)
> There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
> And a time for every purpose, under heaven
>
> A time of love, a time of hate
> A time of war, a time of peace
> A time you may embrace, a time to refrain from embracing
>
> To everything (turn, turn, turn)
> There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
> And a time for every purpose, under heaven
>
> A time to gain, a time to lose
> A time to rend, a time to sew
> A time to love, a time to hate
> A time for peace, I swear its not too late
>
>
/////////////////
Also this
Schell said Van Meter's body was found Sunday about 5 p.m. by a neighbor,
Michael Thiess, at her home at 902 Grove St.
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/local/local_story_078154348.html
//////////////////////
http://vapolluan.livejournal.com/62831.html
//////////////////
And no, in this case the cause of death is irrelevant.This person was
predestined.
HAND, S.T.P.
Dubh Ghall
More likely because "pascha" is only a variant of the vernal equinox,
anyway, and as that was celebrated anywhere far enough from the
equator it to show, it was only to be expected that the early
missionaries, would co-opt any myth they found, Oestre, as it
happened, to slip their god under the back door.
Dubh Ghall
<hanar...@archangels.mil> wrote:
>I didnt start this thread.Maybe you ought to talk to Yang while you are at
>it-he loves to crosspost threads through atheism
>
I have seen no evidence of that.
What I usually find, when I track the x=posts back, it that it is a
xtian who has initiated it.
No, I haven't traced this one back.
snip
>>>
>>>Why pass up a free gift?
>>
>> The price is too high.
>>
>>
>
>Well fortunately the penalty is not hellfire or any of that stuff, thats for
>anti-christs and sinister souls, not mere unbelievers.
>For you, just nothingness after death.
I can live, and die, with that prospect.
Oblivion is by far, preferable to immortality.
snip
KJG Ecclesiastes 3:1-9
3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose
under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time
to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to
dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a
time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to
cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a
time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of
peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to
be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set
the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that
God maketh from the beginning to the end.
thomas p.
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i en meddelelse
news:kbv2u35vko510h1fv...@4ax.com...snip
>>If I was stranded on an island I would pick the New Living
>>Translation.
>
> Why?
>
> Is the paper softer, to wipe your bum on, or does it start a fire
> better?
>
> I think that if I was stranded on an island, I would want something a
> little more practical than a book of myths.
>
A book of matches for example.
spacegamer777
> "Dubh Ghall" <p...@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i en meddelelsenews:kbv2u35vko510h1fv...@4ax.com...> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT), spacegamer777
> > <spacegamer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>If I was stranded on an island I would pick the New Living
> >>Translation.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Is the paper softer, to wipe your bum on, or does it start a fire
> > better?
>
> > I think that if I was stranded on an island, I would want something a
> > little more practical than a book of myths.
>
> A book of matches for example.
I was replying to Neo's statement about what bible he would bring on
an island. This discussion isn't about what survival items you would
bring.
God Bless.
Dubh Ghall
Dubh Ghall
Sunshine, it is being x-posted to alt.atheism: If you wish to be free
of our offerings, remove us from your headers.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Practical? You are Mr. Gradgrind, and I claim my years supply of
humbugs.......
Dr. Barry Worthington
thomas p.
"spacegamer777" <spaceg...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:317e0eef-f0ba-457f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
We are commenting on your choice.
>
> God Bless.
thomas p.
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> skrev i en meddelelse
Gosh, if he did that, he would not be able to complain about our posts.
spacegamer777
> "spacegamer777" <spacegamer...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:317e0eef-f0ba-457f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yes, trolls usually do.
>
>
> > God Bless.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>
Knickers! I keep forgetting that.
Dubh Ghall
I don't make a habit of referring to Wiki, but on this occasion, it
seems appropriate.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:What is a troll?
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an
online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the
intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to
generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now remembering that you x-posted to us, alt.atheism: Who is the
troll?
Dubh Ghall
Mmm.
I can only assume that "practical", is not a word with which you are
familiar, the more so, because you seem to think that it in some way
relates to mint sweetmeats.
You could have looked it up on line, an saved your self the
embarrassment.
spacegamer777
I didn't start the topic but now you wouldn't have to see this
message. alt.atheism is removed.
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Did you study Bible translations like my chessfriend did?
The flaw you mention is hardly a mistake at all:-)
In Dutch the word for "Easter" is "Pasen"
which is with certainty derived from "Pascha"
I do not know how many errors any Bible translation possesses,
I do know however that words always change their meaning slighty when
translated.
That is why people who take the translations "litterally" are very
deluded indeed.
Reading the text in the "original" language also doesn't solve the
problem,
as noone speaks the "original language anymore, and the words to a
modern scholar may have a different meaning than in had when it was
first written.
I - of course - use Dutch translations - which cannot possible have
the exact same meaning as the English ones
Smiler
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
That would have taken a modicum of intelligence......
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
thomas p.
And the little boy yells and stomps his feet. I am, of course, devastated.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>
>"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>news:86f5u3pcooks01afm...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:21:12 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 19, 8:59 pm, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT), spacegamer777
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Snip
>>>Practical? You are Mr. Gradgrind, and I claim my years supply of
>>>humbugs.......
>>>
>>>Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mmm.
>>
>> I can only assume that "practical", is not a word with which you are
>> familiar, the more so, because you seem to think that it in some way
>> relates to mint sweetmeats.
>>
>> You could have looked it up on line, an saved your self the
>> embarrassment.
>
>That would have taken a modicum of intelligence......
>
Yeah, the buggers have always got an excuse.
Smiler
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
Nil illegitimus carborundum.
<Ronnie Barker in "Porridge">