HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:25:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University


>>I would like to aquire an accurate translation of the bible and
>>would like the net's opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of the 
>>different versions available.  Although the RSV is highly regarded, 
>>the NRSV claims to be an improvement on it.  For this reason,
>>I though I should delay my decision until I have better information.  
>>Specific references to editions with good footnotes would be appreciated.
>>Since some editions have inspirational notes included, I must note that 
>>this is of less interest to me than historical explanations of phrases 
>>and cross-references to related passages.  Thanks in advance.

>I highly recommend the NIV. I recently began reading the NIV after using
>the KJV for almost my entire life. The terminology is more understandable
>and doesn't have the problems that the KJV does (IMO). A friend of my
>wife's said that the KJV was poetically brilliant at the risk of being
>inaccurate.

It's funny.  For every person I hear who condemns the NIV for "casual
paraphrasing" and "not suitable for scholarly work" I hear another
who stands by its accuracy.  Oh well, I wonder who's right.
From my experience, use the NIV for verse memorization and light
reading, but do not base any theology on it.  Enough people have told
me it's unreliable that I would not risk it.

The KJV and NKJV are actually very good translations, especially for the 
time.  I'm sure you will get a post or mail from one of the people who
buy into the theory that the KJV was "re-inspired" at the time it
was translated and is therefore the Spirit's Bible of Choice.

Ignore them.

Having said that, I know at least one priest who considers the KJV to be
a tiebreaker when versions collide (and he's Anglican, so it's an 
intellectual thing).

I notice that this "reinspiration" belief must be on the rise because the local
evangelical bookstore used to be filled with study NIVs and is now mostly KJVs.

The NAB is OK but not real good. (The Catholic Bible)

The Oxford Study Bible (Available in NRSV and REV) is very good (and
expensive).  I like the REV but I know nothing about what reliable
authorities say sbout it.

In my experience, the NRSV (and the RSV) are the versions most reccommended
for their precision.  I want to get an Oxford NRSV whenever I've got $30
to burn.

Ernest Mueller
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: Get a life
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
	<1992Jul27.173403.25964@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.173403.25964@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:

   In article <adams.711829078@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
   >
   >>As for the others who disagreed with my opinion, thank you for an
   >>alternate view.  I am indeed a sinner, as are all others.  I just happen
   >>to think that if God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit collaborated on a book
   >>that is the authoritative word of God, and that book says that
   >>homosexuality is UNNATURAL, that it is unnatural.
   >
   >Please tell me exactly where it says that God wrote the Bible.

   All scripture is inspired (God-breathed) of God.... 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Ommitting the parenthetical comment inserted by Mr Gross, the
quotation is "all scripture is inspired by God".  The Greek word is
not so ambiguous as Mr Gross would have it, and means something very
close to our English word "inspired".  It most certainly does not
support a theory of verbal inspiration, that these are the literal
words of God.

Moreover, it doesn't identify just what constitutes scripture.  At the
time, the Septuagint was regarded as scripture.  The writings of Paul
are not referred to as scripture for quite some time after this
letter, though they are regarded as important already.  When the
Catholic Church established the canon of the New Testament, it was
careful not to state that this constituted the entire realm of
scripture, or even (!) that all that was contained in the canon was
scripture, but rather that this was the *rule* (which is what canon
means) by which scripture-ness would be measured.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:05:05 GMT

lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:
> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

> Corey cannot be making a stand against Jehovah, for the simple reason that he
> no longer believes that Jehovah exists.

>If one is not for Jehovah, he is against Jehovah.

Sigh. How I be against something I don't think exists?

>   Trouble is that in accepting The Bible as "Jehovah's word", *you* had to
>   make the judgement that it *is* indeed Jehovah's word. You trusted human
>   reason (i.e. your own) at that point.

>This is true I did rely on my own reasoning based on what I have seen with
>respect to the bible and JW organization.  Everything made sense and was clear.
>There were no confusion involved.  The fact that everythings around us had a
>creator, e.g., computers, houses, etc., tells me that an even bigger things
>(e.g., the earth) would have to have a creator.

So who created the creator then?

>God does not intervene directly in mans affairs; he does so only through 
>the bible!

But Laura, the Bible is a book telling of how God intervened directly in Man's
affairs!

I give up.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:42:22 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Jul23.201032.23026@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <4040@news.duke.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:

>>My point was that you can't explain away the love between Jesus and the
>>Beloved Disciple, who some think was named John [John Mark?], by pointing
>>out that others do the same thing, such as your Bedoin example.

>And at the same time, you can't read homosexuality into a verse of Scripture
>because of the connotations of English words.

But that is ***PRECISELY*** what has happened with the Pauline verses usually
used to proscribe homosexuality! Either you make it apply equally in opposite
circumstances, or not at all...

>I do disagree with the implication that Christ was sexually immoral.

But you certainly don't have enough information to conclude that he didn't
possess a homosexual or bisexual orientation.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Jul27.174443.2701@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<LAURAF.92Jul28114123@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
	<1992Jul29.060753.23909@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:41:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.060753.23909@cs.ucla.edu> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:

Rich Wales wrote:

   Laura Falk wrote:

	   Creation is evidence enough for me.  I cannot comprehend
	   how man could just evolve.  Humans today cannot create
	   life or duplicate the healing process of the body.  Does
	   all this not account for something?

   Yes, but (as far as I'm concerned at least) it is evidence only that
   there is a God.  Not necessarily that Jehovah's Witnesses have the
   true understanding of that God.

Once evidence has been established, then it is up the individual to research the
bible for the truth.  This would possible include searching for a religion that,
of course, teaches and follows what the bible says.  Not everyone will come to
the same conclusion though.

Laura
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Slamming the LDS (was: Structure of Time)
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:20:22 MDT
Organization: Utah State University
Distribution: na

ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM writes:
[...]
> The 'Space Potato' story is no more or less assaulting to the senses
> than, say... Joseph Smith's fable concerning the Garden of Eden
> being located in Missouri, or Noah sailing his ark from the
> Carolinas.

Oh no, here we go again.

Couldn't you used Aesop's Fables, Norse, Greek, or Mayan mythology
instead of trying to indirectly slam the LDS?

I've never heard the one about Noah launching the Ark from the
Carolinas before, but Garden of Eden, Missouri, USA I have.

And since these things happened *before* the Flood, who really
knows if the geographycal locations were the same before and
after?  More importantly, what difference does it *really* make?

--
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Jesus Would Gag
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 26 Jul 1992 18:02:33 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Lawrence and Simon's suggestions and Lesley's incredulity in the following
interchange
highlight how much our religious imagery and our openess in spiritual matters is
held in
thrall to cultural habits.

Simon:
>However, I'm going to ask Lesley a question which I hope will serve as
>an answer of sorts to hers:
>
>       Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

Lesley:
>       As for Santa being inserted into the Word of God that is
impossible...Santa (Chris) didn't
>       heal the sick, make the blind see, or the lame to walk...there is no
way..you could replace God.

Lawrence:
>Santa performs miracles to, he can make it to all the houses in the
>world in only one day, and he can even squeeze down chimneys after eating
>all the cookies and milk left for him.

In Buddhism it is thought that great truth seekers come along periodically and
"rediscover"
the way to enlightenment which becomes obscured over time.   The next teacher to
come
after the historical Buddha is called Maitreya (I think the name is derived from
the word
for friend, or something close to it.)

However, this Buddha-to-come is not always portrayed with the seriousness due to
a
"saviour".    In tenth century China there was an old monk Pu tai who refused to
enter
any monastery on any basis of permanence, who roamed the countryside in tattered
robes and free of monkish discipline.

He is a fat, roly-poly figure whose image many of you are probably familar with,
at least
from Chinese restaurants, as the Laughing Buddha.  He walked the streets with a
sack
over his shoulder, giving gifts to children and  playing with them in the roads
and fields.
Though he was supposed to be enlightened his religious life consisted of playing
with
children, as if life had now come full circle, as if the end were in some way a
return
to the beginning, as if even children and fools knew what clerics and scriptures
do not.

After his death this strange, wandering mendicant came to be regarded by many
as an incognito form of Maitreya the future Buddha.   The following Buddhist
chant
about Maitreya captures the combination:	

"When the big belly thunders with loud roars of laughter,
 thousands of white lotuses rain through all the worlds.
 With his bag of cloth vast is he as the universe:
 He will succeed the Buddha, preaching the message in the park."

So the next time you see his statue, a corpulent old man with his belly hanging
out of
his robes and a dozen children swarming over him, fishing in his sack, pulling
his hair,
tweaking his nipples and ears, say hello to the saviour of the world.

Christianity needs Santa Claus, like it doesn't need more blood and gore
and obsession with human sacrifice.

JACK CARROLL
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The sin of shaving? (was Homosexuals anywhere...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:02:43 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Jul30.210113.19084@brtph560.bnr.ca> n5ppm264 (Charlie Board) writes:
>As for the anti-choice pastors...for nearly 20 years they have been preaching
>that abortion is a primo, grade-A sin AND trying to force people to have
>unwanted children.  As Christians they should be looking at the Bible to
>support their position (that it's a sin, in a free society there IS NO
>support for forcing that choice on others). 

Try this one out.

How do you interpret Jeremiah chapter 1:5, where God says "that before I
created you in your mothers womb, I knew you."  In fact, God had
called Jeremiah to be a prophet at that point, hadn't He?

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Bible version evaluation
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<drice.711701689@ponder> <1992Jul21.192501.17284@rice.edu> 
	<12394@inews.intel.com> <1992Jul22.045741.12128@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<12425@inews.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 04:51:58 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>>The JPS translation is quite good, but unfortunately the only edition
>>I'm aware of lacks a really extensive set of scholarly notes. 

>But it is annotated and indicates where translations differ substantially
>from KJV or other standards and where the translation is vague or could
>not be accomplished. Also it is composed as a text while attempting to
>maintain sections of prose, but also has the verse numbers used in KJV for
>cross reference.

The notes that it has are useful.  As you say, they mostly consist of
indications of uncertainties or ambiguities in translation.  However,
they are much less extensive than (for instance) the Oxford Annotated
Bible.  


Keith
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey and Tim says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:41:49 GMT
   s.edu.au><LAURAF.92Jul24082753@wolf.eecs.umich.edu><1992Jul24.192301.21979@d
 cs  .warwick.ac.uk><LAURAF.92Jul28113337@wolf.eecs.umich.edu><1992Jul29.100505
 .15139@maths.tcd.ie> <LAURAF.92Jul30155204@wolf.eecs.umich.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

lauraf@eecs.umich.edu (Laura Falk) writes:

>But Paul, the bible is a book telling us how God intervened directly in Man's
>affairs back then not now!!!  The bible was written aforetime for our
>instruction today.  Why would GOD have any reason to involve himself in our
>affairs today if we already have an instruction book per se?  Tell me, how many
>times have you heard the phrase: "if all else fails read the instructions"?

Why would God have any reason to send Jesus to redeem mankind and involve
himself in the affairs of the day, if they already had an instruction book
per se?   Tell me, isn't the Torah an instruction manual?    Didn't it
exist at the time of Christ?  Wasn't it considered Scripture?  (The Law and
The Prophets)?  Remember, the Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
and Deuteronomy.

Seems there's a problem with your arguement.  Try again.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE
Summary: learn from religious dogma, but don't be dogmatic!
Keywords: Luke 14:26
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:51:56 GMT

The day of the autocracy of government and religion has past. The time of
the individual, the time of self interpretation has come. Don't be fooled
by mere men, especially those that are alive, who claim to have direct word
from god or the only valid interpretation of religious dogma. It is your
right and responsiblity to interpret all dogma for yourself. You are the
individual, now be it. There are many tests along your path on your
journey, don't be fooled into thinking they are rules. The hardest tests
are those that appear to be rules and truth. The hardest tests are those that
appear to come from authority. But the only authority is the authority of
the individual. Only the individual knows the way. Only the individual can
pass the tests. Now here is a test: FOLLOW ME AND BE FREE!
From: frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Allegheny College
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.220609.4521@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross) writes:
> If jesus were to love and forgive homosexuals as a group, why not
> murderers and adulterers?  Why not fornicators, and rapists.  
     I take offense at this statement. The very foundation of Christianity  
is that Jesus LOVED everyone. The basis of all Jesus's teaching was love  
and forgiveness (set aside the Gordonist Heresy -:) ). And who are you to  
tell Jesus who to forgive? When you become God, it will be different, but  
for now we mortals have to put up with love -:).
---
Vince
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:12459 alt.atheism:14121
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:31:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

George La Belle added the following observation to the statement made by the 
David Butler of Seattle:

> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
> 
>> Just because people add extraneous interpretation and
>> attribute all kinds of characteristics to the spirit that arent verifiable
>> does not mean the spirit doesn't exist.  And just because the spirit doesn't
>> work the way we want it to or manifest itself the way we expect it should
>> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>	  No intelligent atheist claims that there is no god - just that there
>	  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	is no evidence for one. In other words an atheist has no particular
>	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	reason to believe in a god. You can believe whatever you want to
>	exist, exists. It is not my responsibility to prove that it doesn't.
>	But I can make the statement, until proven wrong, that no viable
>	evidence for your claim exists. The burden for proof of the claim of
>	the existence of god rests with the claimant. 

Actually George, if you restrict atheists to the rules of logic, they can
indeed, in the absence of all evidence, logically claim that there is no God,
while one cannot, in the absence of all evidence, logically claim that there
IS a God.  This is because, while there is a fallacy called "Argumentum ad
Ignorantum" (ie: argument from ignorance), there is no logical converse for 
that fallacy.  Argument from Ignorance states that absence of "evidence against"
is not "evidence for".  To say it differently, the lack of evidence against a
thing's existence, in no way allows one to conclude *FOR* the existence of
that thing.  Thus, it is logically fallacious and invalid to conclude: "Since
you can't disprove the existence of fairies, they must exist."

On the other hand it IS *logically* valid to conclude that lack of evidence
for the existence of a thing, is evidence against the existence of that thing. 
Thus it is logically valid to conclude: "Since no real evidence has ever been
shown for hoop snakes, they must be a myth." Now this logic may not be applied
%100 percent correctly (ie: there may actually be evidence of which we are at
present unaware), but the basic principle is logically valid. 

Thus George, if one cannot present strong evidence for their god (ie: evidence
which is verifiable and is not an indefensible example of special pleading),
then it is indeed *logically* valid to dismiss the existence of that god. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a 
    thinker it is his duty to follow his intellect to whatever 
    conclusion it may lead.
				John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Structure of Time (FINAL SUMMARY)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:19:35 GMT

geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
: Please, people:
: 
: The man is obviously quite mad.  Physicists (and especially
: astronomers) have to learn to deal with these folks, as they
: quite often walk into a physics department to converse with
: the learned about their theories.  Hopefully, his employer
: won't just fire him but will try to get him some psychiatric
: help.  I think rather than treating him to abuse and harsh 
: words, we should try to understand with compassion
: that such illnesses happen to people and the things he is
: experiencing as coming from his daughter seem as real to
: him as any of our experiences are to us. He is reacting to
: his reality in an understandable way.  What you are seeing
: is not at all uncommon and you really should appreciate the
: chance to observe such a phenomenon first hand rather than
: getting bent out of joint over it.  Attacking him is like
: kicking a cripple.

You may well be right. That is not something I had considered
as a possibility - I just assumed it was religious fervor. Thanks
for the observation.

Bill
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus Would Gag
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:23:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <l70kqiINNqbq@male.EBay.Sun.COM> lesley@pleasanton.EBay.Sun.COM writes:

>>>-Lesley:
>>>
>>> Now..could you please answer a question for me? Why don't you beleive
>>> in God?

>>-Simon:
>> However, I'm going to ask Lesley a question which I hope will serve as
>> an answer of sorts to hers:
>>
>>	Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
>>
>> If you believe in God but not in Santa, please account for your different
>> conclusions. By the way, if your belief in God is based on scripture, no
>> problem. Take your bible, and do a global substitution of "Santa" in place
>> of "God". Now you have an authoritative scripture which proclaims the glory
>> of Santa.

>-Lesley:
> My conclusions is that God sent His only Son Jesus Christ..to make a
> covenent with His people by His blood to forgive us of our sins, to
> keep us from going to Hell..for those of us who chose to follow Christ.

You've said what you concluded, but not why. The question was "why".

> As for Santa being inserted into the Word of God that is impossible...
> Santa (Chris) didn't heal the sick, make the blind see, or the lame to
> walk...there is no way..you could replace God.

Says here in my scripture that Santa, acting through his son, did all that
stuff, and it also says that the scripture itself is the Word of Santa and
therefore true. How does my position differ from yours? Do you have some
evidence independent of scripture?

>	In Christ, Lesley

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc