From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Ye Great Sinners
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:34:21 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.221714.7151@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.214034.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Sep28.135243.7138@iscsvax.uni.edu>, marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>>> 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?
> 
> 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."
  
> 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?
  
>>>> "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."
> 
> What translation is that?  I looked in the King James, New King James, Revised
> Standard, New Revised Standard, New English, and New International versions and 
> none of them said "might" or "might not" there.
> 
> I'd really appreciate it if you would tell me what translation that is so that
> I might check it out.

It's the _New American Bible With Revised New Testament_.
 
>> 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.
> 
> It might not be.  Again, what version or translation is it?

Gee, that's a scary thought. Priests hading out _Bibles_ that aren't really
_Bibles_.
 
>> 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.
 
>>>> 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 don't think that "should" or "shall" change the meaning.

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.
 
>> 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?
> 
> I believe denominations are one of the biggest schemes that the Devil ever
> thought up.  He's torn the body of Christ apart for years in this manner.  It's 
> just now that people are starting to look past the denominational differences
> and find out the truth of Christianity.

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.

The problem of inaccurate translations still remains unaddressed.
 
>> It was a polite way of saying, "We've come to our senses. Why don't you?"
> 
> I truly have.

Which is debatable (in fact, that's what we're doing right now)  :)
  
--Semhaza
Newsgroups: alt.satanism