From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:09:45 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

>> Either way.  It does not really matter if it was gopher or cypress.  It still
>> got the job done.
> 
> One can never tell what may be significant. After all, I have heard many Xians
> say to me, "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

Sometimes, that is a cheesy answer for a Christian to say.  (especially when
speaking of wood [just joking])


>> I've seen that there is a God exerting miraculous power over this world.  I'm
>> sorry that you have not.  But have you looked very hard?
> 
> I've been looking for years. How do you see God at work?

I see many people in the church (the body of Christ, that is) do great things
and help many people.  I see many come to know Christ personally, and there is
a verse that says something like "None to God except through the Holy Spirit". 
Maybe that is a paraphrasing.


> It's the _New American Bible With Revised New Testament_.

Really, I haven't run across one of those.  Is it pretty common in your area or
churches?

  
> Gee, that's a scary thought. Priests hading out _Bibles_ that aren't really
> _Bibles_.

Yep, it is.  How's that for hypocrisy?  Pretty nasty thing to have happen in
the church.

  
>>> 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*?
>> 
>> Test out what I say then.  I'm not claiming to be anyone special.  I don't look
>> to the belief of "churchianity" to find the truth.  I sit in prayer and I read
>> many books to find the truth.  My main source of information is the canonized
>> Bible.  I've also looked into the Apocrypha and into writings from the Other
>> Bible.  (obviously I'm screening the books other than the canonized Bible for
>> errors, but some contain much truth)
> 
> Someone who thinks for themself rather than swallowing someone else's
> "revelation" wholesale. I have to admire that in anybody.

  
> If the correct translation is "shall" then it's definite. We "shall" be saved,
> assuming that we believe and that we are putting our faith in an actual God who
> is telling the truth. If the correct translation is "should" then, well, we
> "should" have everlasting life, because we are so deserving and all, but it
> won't necessarily turn out that way.

You have a good point.  I could be that in 1611 you said "should" and it meant
"shall".  I have found a lot of "old" to "new" english quirks like that.

  
> In some respects you may be right. In some, people are just not bothering. It
> doesn't really matter if you are a Methodist or a Catholic or a Baptist,
> because it's all a big fake anyway, and the only good thing to come out of it
> is that humans are (sometimes) nicer to each other. Note that I am repeating
> others' views here.

I didn't follow that too well.  Could you send me e-mail and explain what you
meant above there.

 
> The problem of inaccurate translations still remains unaddressed.

Tell me which versions you believe are inaccurate, specifically, and I'll look
into the question.


You said in another post of Re: Ye great sinners that your story is kind of
like a reverse of Mike Warnke.  If you decide to tell, I'd like to hear it.

Take care.
  
-- 
Evan Marshall                            ************************************
University of Northern Iowa              *           BANG THE DRUM          *
(319) 266-0931                           *       Let Your Freedom Ring      *
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu             ************************************
Newsgroups: alt.satanism