From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:40:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.135243.7138@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
[replying to a previous post of ours]
>>> Genesis 6:14 states, "So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms
>>> in it and coat it with pitch inside and out."
>>  
>> Uh-uh.  It was gopherwood.  You are wrong.
> 
> Actually no I'm not.  The word, in the Hebrew, for that type of wood was
> uncertain.  The people who translated the King James Version believed that it
> was gopher wood.  The people who translated the New International Version
> called it cypress wood.

Other translations agree that it was gopherwood. Who are we to believe?
 
>>>> fate!  And, lo, God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, and don't 
>>>> think He won't to the same to you!
>>> 
>>> Perhaps He might.
>> 
>> God couldn't turn a turnip into a  tomato.
> 
> Why not?

Do you argue that he *can*?

I suppose you do, so let me answer. There is no God exerting miraculous power
over this material world. If there were, you'd be right. The flaw is your
initial assumption:  the Xian God exists. In fact, he does not.
 
>>> Ecclesiastes 5:14 states, "or wealth lost through some misfortune, so that
>>> when he has a son there is nothing left for him."  
>> 
>> Wrong again; It says: "As he came forth from his mother's womb, so again
>> shall he depart, naked as he came, having nothing from his labor that he
>> can carry in his hand."  You *must* have the censored version.
> 
> No, again I am not wrong.  Verse 14 says exactly what I said it does.  You
> just quoted verse 15, which says extactly what you wrote. 

You know, it was very peculiar. Shaitan and I got out two different
translations (yes, one of them was the King James version, but not the one we
relied on for most quotes) and they disagreed. We did, in fact, quote Verse 14,
despite what you think.

_The Bible_ doesn't even agree with itself on proper verse order. Go figure.
  
>>> John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son,
>>> that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
>>> 
>>> At least you got one verse partly correct.
>> 
>> However, you are in error (as usual).  The real words from It:
>> "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
>> believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life."
>>                 ^^^^^ ^^^            ^^^^^
> 
> Wrong.  The Bible does not say that.

Ours did. I'll rely on my eyes before I'll rely on someone at another computer
claiming that "it doesn't say that."

Are you saying that what we read, with _Holy Bible_ written on it in obvious
large letters, is not in fact _The Holy Bible_? I'm sure the priest who was
kind enough to give it to us would be dismayed to hear that.

If this is not the one, true _The Bible_, how are we to tell which *is* the
true one? The word of another human? The word of *you*? You are proclaiming to
be *Whom*?
 
>> My other _The Holy Bible_ says (John 3:16):
>> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
>> whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
>>                            ^^^^^^ ^^^
> 
> These words "should not" and "shall not" are synonymous in the Greek.

Not being familiar with Greek, I'll grant the possiblity. However, that raises
another problem. Which translation is the most accurate, "should not" or "shall
not"?

>> I find it interesting how a couple words can make a great difference in how
>> one is led.
> 
> I don't find the difference that you are trying to place on it.  I've read the
> Greek and the translation that I gave you was valid.

Is it impossible to know the Word of God unless you can read it in Greek?
That's the conclusion I have to draw.

Are "might" and "might not" equivalent to "should/not" and "shall/not" in
Greek? Because the first version of John 3:16 that we quoted could have
staggering consequences.
  
>> And how many have been led astray by all the translations of _The Holy Bible_
>> which were slightly "off"?  (Why, the answer is simple, Xians say:  "None;
>> God would not allow His Word to be Misquoted!")  Xians are blind to the
>> world about them, carving new venues in the realms of Ill-logic. . .right? 
>> Silence will be interpreted as the Holy Yes.
> 
> Our interpretations that we have today are VERY accurate.  Get yourself a copy
> of the New International Version or the New Revised Standard Version.  They
> used the most reliable texts to translate.

How do we know the validity of these "reliable" text?

Why are Xians not campaigning to make people aware of this? If they read the
incorrect translation, could their immortal souls be in danger (assuming Xian
doctrine is correct)? This is the point we were trying to illustrate:  there
are considerable differences in copies of _The Bible_ available, and not all
Xian groups appear to agree with you on the "best" translations. Are we
supposed to further *interpret* (take with a grain of salt) what we have
available to read, because it is laden with errors?
  
>> It is written:  "They who quoteth ye Bible in the name of God quoteth
>> nonsense."
> 
> Where is that written in any book but yours?

Right here on your terminal screen.
 
>> Know ye, God has had a profound effect on my life.  He has taught me His Way 
>> for He has told Me His Secret.  The real Truth is that He was Lying all
>> along; He was fabricated by Its Creators in order to control Its
>> Worshippers. I see His Light and I am pleased; We are all Doomed for there
>> is no Heaven and there is no Hell; we prey for Nothing:  Death itself. 
> 
> Heaven is promised.  Where is the truth in your statement.  Why has God
> revealed this to no one save yourself.  How did this "lie" come to pass?  You
> pray for nothing?  Is all that you desire torment?

It was a polite way of saying, "We've come to our senses. Why don't you?"
 
--Semhaza & Shaitan--
Newsgroups: alt.satanism