From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: When is a Misquote not a Misquote?
Date: 21 Jul 92 00:28:03 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Jul18.144624.11262@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> 
> 
> Robert Weiss writes about Bill Clinton's acceptance speech:
> 
>> But he also said: "Scripture says, `Our eyes have not yet seen, nor our ears
>> heard, nor our minds imagined, what we can build.'"  Now, this is not in my
>> Bible. The closest there is comes from 1 Corinthians 2:9 which is rendered,
>> "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has
>> prepared for those who love Him."  The difference between what Clinton
>> portrays as Scripture, and what it does indeed say, puts what we can build
>> in the place of what God has prepared.
> 
> This is not necessarily correct.
> 
> Mr Clinton was speaking, not writing; we do not know where his quote ended.
> The intention may have been to end the Scriptural quote after `imagined'; that
> is, instead of quoting the Bible to talk about human greatness, he quoted the
> Bible's imagery for impact.  I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of chop-
> quoting, but Christians do it all the time.

Oooo!!  Hold it just a minute there, bub!  Putting a piece of Scripture in your
sentence and ending it with something completely different sounds a bit on the
questionable side to me, even more so if he intentionally quoted scripture up
until "imagined" and then stuck in "what we can build".  This completely
changes the meaning of what was said, and sticking "Scripture says" in the
front of it seems to validate the whole thing.  If I hear someone say
"Scripture says ABC", my natural inclination is to think that "Scripture says,
'ABC'.", not "Scripture says, 'AB'... C."

As for chop-quoting, that's something that I do not appreciate in the least. 
It has been quite confusing for me, ever since I decided to try reading through
the Bible myself (I've technically made it all the way through, but I've been
having to go back through to try to make sure I've *really* read it all.  Ack! 
Those 'begets'!  Aieee!) I've often made discoveries that scriptures that were
often quoted at me to prove a certain point were *completely* out of context
... leaving me a bit confused as to what to think about that.  No, chop-quoting
does no justice.  If it's done, from my experience, what it accomplishes is to
change the meaning of Scripture ... which it what apparently has happened here.

> I think we should be glad there's a candidate who can find Scripture passages
> vaguely relevant to his ideas; I suspect that quite a few of them have more
> dust on their Bibles than they'd care to admit.

No reason to be happy if it's a candidate who does just enough Scripture
reading so he can pull some strings so all those happy Christians out there who
don't bother to read their own Bibles (I'm *trying*!) will hear something that
sounds vaguely familiar ... but has a few twists to it.  Basically, it sounds
like he's trying to tickle some ears so those Christians out there will think
"Boy, this is a real Godly man!"...
> 
> Mr Weiss also commented on Mr Clinton's position on abortion, and his view of
> homosexuals in the military.  Without getting into these issues again, suffice
> it to say that I believe Mr Weiss is unfairly pushing his own opinions as if

???

> they were exactly equivalent to Christianity.  As a Christian who disagrees
> with Mr Weiss on both issues, I would appreciate it if we could all be less
> judgemental and self-righteous.

Uh oh!  There go those key words again!  "Judgemental" and "self-righteous". 
You know, it kind of strikes me funny when I hear that, because, in so
labelling someone like that, you just might be "judgemental" and
"self-righteous" YOURSELF!  (Of course, correspondingly, by saying that, *I*
might be judgemental and self-righteous.  Bummer.  Kind of a vicious circle,
don't you think?)

> As an aside, I find it strange that conservative Christians favor a candidate
> whose church ordains homosexuals and has female priests (Mr Bush is an
> Episcopalian).  While the other candidate's denomination just voted to kick
> out any church which condoned homosexuality, and refuses to financially assist
> any church with an ordained woman.

These days, I don't know what demoninations mean anymore.  The national
denominations say one thing, and I find local churches that follow something
almost entirely different.  I've done quite a bit of church-hopping (I'm a
college student, as if that explains it) and particularly I've found Lutheran
churches that were almost indistinguishable from some Baptist churches I've
been to, and some Lutheran churches that ... well, they were *different*.

> to the Anglican Catholics".  I don't usually trust politicians much (certainly

Who does?  Who would be willing to admit that they do?  Not fashionable.

> recent Supreme Court decision a victory, even though they specifically refused

I'd suggest reading up a little more about the reasons *why* they refused to.

> As I recall, he used to be pro-choice and only `converted' when he ran with
> Ronald Reagan -- this makes me doubt his sincerity.  (Of course, I Could Be
> Wrong.)

Hm.  Still, is it better to trust someone who is apparently sincere in holding
to values that are non-Christian, as opposed to someone who may waffle on
holding to values that are Christian?  "Lesser of two evils" springs to mind...
(Not Biblical, I know, but politics is a strange thing to try to apply one's
faith to.)
-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU