HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:11:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <BzJD0s.9r9@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The word is mistranslated, because in the Septuigent, the Greek
>translation of Tanach (what you Xtians call the Old Teastement), the greek
>word for virgin was used as a translation for both ALMAH and B'TULAH.


        "... we know that there was what we call 'progressive revelation'
    in the Bible so that Moses knew a lot more about God, life and reality
    than was revealed to Abraham, and Paul had a lot more revealed to him
    than to Moses or David.  The New Testament throws light on the Old
    Testament and, since the New Testament is the more full revelation of
    God's multi-faceted truth, we are supposed to see and interpret the Old
    Testament through the eyes of the New Testament revelation.  Few would
    disagree with that.

        "One example of this would be Matthew 1:23, which quotes Isaiah
    7:14:  'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son,
    and they shall call his name Immanuel. ...'  The word in Isaiah 7:14
    for 'virgin' can just as easily be translated as 'maiden,' which
    liberal scholars used to discredit the virgin birth of Jesus.  However,
    when the Holy Spirit caused His penman Matthew to quote that Hebrew
    verse in Greek, He arranged for Matthew to choose, not the general
    Greek term for 'maiden' but the very specific Greek word for 'virgin'
    (parthenos, from which we derive the English word 'parthenogenesis'),
    which can only mean 'virgin.'  Thus, whatever broader usage God had for
    Isaiah to choose a general term around 740 B.C. for both that century
    and the century for the incarnation of Christ, the matter is settled
    forever that 'virgin,' and not generally 'maiden,' is the
    interpretation God insists we place upon Jesus' mother and Matthew
    1:23."

                                from Jay Grimstead
                                in "The Five Principles of Hermeneutics"

[Reprinted from Crosswinds, published by Coalition on Revival, PO Box A,
 Sunnyvale, CA  94087-0020]
-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Kent's got a hammer :)
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:13:00 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>> >Hi, that's an interesting idea. However, I'm skeptical about this all.
>> >Anyone who's ever written a computer manual or a technical article
...
>So my point was that an omnipotent being would have certainly anticipated
>this turmoil and confusion, and made sure that it would never happen.
>
>As we know today there are no forces that will make sure that we have 
>a uniform doctrine. In other words this possible omnipotent being
>didn't architecture a fully working religious base.
>
>As we all know NNTP and SMTP are fully described, and we could send
>email and newsentries all around the world. A similar design concerning
>standards and definitions would have also helped in the case of 
>the Christian world today. Someone might say that the Bible is the 

Uh, Kent -- your post reminds me of the adage that when one
has a hammer in one's hand, everything begins to look like
a nail.

You might as well complain about music or art in the same way. Perhaps
you would agree that not everything need be hyper-rational and easily
explainable; that in fact there is some value in something precisely
because it is expressed differently. Some people would argue that
the questions are far more important than a particular given answer.

:)

Dano
advocatus diaboli
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:09:30 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec22.042547.3908@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> In article <ksand-211292190005@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> > In article <1992Dec21.234517.28840@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>,
> > press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) wrote:
> > > I believe J experienced the full weight of _all_ human sin and
> > > conditions when he became sin on the cross, so in that sense he
> > > did experience all and more. 
 
> > So we are dealing with a mystical transformation that will never
> > be explained, and all we have to rely on is the doctrines defined
> > later? 

> That's what the word says about him. Rely on him.

This is the problem in my case. I did never believe in ancient
Finnish mythologies about nature Gods, even if they are described
in a book. It's a hard time for me to suddenly start believing
in a mystery cult inspired Jewish Messiah worshipping instituted
2000 years ago. Maybe you realize my dilemma, I might as well
start believing in Mitras. Mysteries are mysteries, and sometimes
they are good reading, but to just have faith in them requires
something my skeptical mind is not willing to give up.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Catholicism
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:38:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <adams.725846506@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
><U56597@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>>I was christened and grew up Catholic.  In recent years, my family has been
>>attending a non-denominational church.  However, I would like to return to the
>>Catholic church.  Would I have to go through a re-confirmation (I did take
>>communion and everything, too) or have a confession session or would I just
>>go back?
>
>It depends on the church...

It looks like you've got some pretty good feedback so far.
But for the unaltered, unedited feedback, you can check out
1 Corinthians 11 (11.28 in particular).  Not-quite-inspired
sources like the Didache will give you similar, but still
wonderful pointers.

Terence
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: PIPI
Date: 23 Dec 92 07:04:54
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: francis@oas.stanford.edu's message of 23 Dec 92 00:36:56 GMT

Francis "no, not related to the talking mule" Muir writes:

   Graham "no, not related to Sir Michael" Redgrave writes:

	   Nichael "no, not related to Clayton" Cramer writes:

		   This practice --of replacing "foreign" characters with 
		   more familiar characters-- is quite common, of course.  
		   A common occurance in English is the transformation of 
		   the signum "IHS" into the English letters eye-aitch-ess, 
		   whereas in fact they are the first three greek letters 
		   of the name "Jesus" (i.e.  iota-eta-sigma).]

	   I thought IHS stands for In Hoc Signum (In this sign, though I've 
	   probably butchered the Latin), or something like that, meaning, 
	   "Check out this otherwise unobtrusive cross-thing."  I usually see
	   IHS over unadorned crosses.

   I cannot imagine anyone aeround at the time knowing enough Greek to put
   up cryptic Greek messages -- it sounds like something from a Quattrocenyo
   painting -- Joann Zimmerman knows this sort of thing. But wasn't INRI
   also common enough in Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion? Jesus
   of Nazareth King of the Jews.

Well, the Latin quote ["In hoc signo vinces": "In this sign shalt thou
conquer"] is from Eusebius' life of Constantine (who allegedly saw it
in a vision before a battle).  In later, more medieval times,
[somebody?  perhaps a group?] used it as a motto.  

But in any case, the oringinal abbreviation is not "an obscure Greek
message".  Abbreviations of this form --the so-called _nomina sacra_
which were formed by combining the initial letter(s) of a name with
the final (i.e. inflection-sensitive) letter-- were used extensively
throughout the history of the Greek text of the New Testament.  They
were especially common in the days before printing, when the number of
(handwritten) letters was at a premium.

E.g.  <PNA> --> <PNEUMA> (=spirit) or <ThU> --> <ThEOU> (=God's).


Nichael                                                            __
ncramer@bbn.com                               Be as passersby.  -- IC 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:34:47 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <fWStRGu@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
> ... If a young, unmarried woman
>was found with child, she could be stoned to death if someone felt the
>need to accuse her.

The assumption that this OT law was still enforced in the first century
is a myth.  Both the NT records and the secular sources point to the
contrary.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:16:29 GMT

In article <fWVpDQ7@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
#In article <78670@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
#>Oops, the word, to my understanding, means one who is engaged to
#>be married - who traditionally would be a virgin - maybe not in
#>today's society, but most likely true in Israel's at that time.
#>They married pretty young.
#
#Richard! The point is plain and simple. The Hebrew text does not say
#virgin! To translate the Hebrew for young woman into virgin is to add to
#the text! Please read your Revelations 22:18-19 for the details of what
#will happen when one adds to the text.

I just want to clear up something.  Did the word `ALMAH mean a young
woman of marriageable age who is NOT YET married or could a married
young woman also have been referred to as `ALMAH?  Could a young,
married, pregnant woman have been called `ALMAH?  If so, I'd say that
Isaiah 7:14 STRONGLY implies that the young woman is definitely NOT a
virgin!

Would it have been proper to talk about an `ALMAH being accused or
convicted of adultery?  Could a young prostitute possibly be called
`ALMAH or would this be an impossible oxymoron?  I just want an idea of
how much purity is implied by the word `ALMAH.  In English, you
certainly can refer to a "girl prostitute" or a "teenage prostitute".

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson)
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 00:51:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.203128.9815@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
> This is a reply to "Drake" regarding a criticism I made about the
> Star Trek episode in which Captain Picard gets tortured by the
> Kardassians (?). 
>
     Hey Sean, I'm back. Mind if I make a few comments? Gee, thanks! :-)

     [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> 
> Now, STTNG shows us how torture can be a motivator
> strong enough to even alter our perceptions (which no doubt it can),
> and in this regard, it takes on an unusual and daring subject.
> But ultimately it just affirms the Romanticism of its audience -- Picard
> does not submit. Yawn. More dime-store Romanticism. "You can mess with  
my
> body, my desires, and even my brain, but you can't really get at a
> brave man's soul!"  
> 
> From _1984_ :  
> 
>    "They can't get inside you," she had said. But they could get inside  
you.
>    "What happens to you here is _forever_," O'Brien [Smith's torturer]
>     had said. That was a true word. There were things, your own acts,
>     from which you could never recover. Something was killed in your
>     breast: burnt out, cauterized out.

     Juxtaposing the latest STNNG story with _1984_ like this brought the  
following thoughts to mind. Both stories, I think, have very different  
underlying premises concerning what a human being is. What the STTNG story  
affirms is the classical and Western Christian view that a human person  
can be split into a body and a soul, with the body being essentially the  
"shell" or "prison" in which the soul either resides or is trapped in.  
While the body and soul are in close proximity to each other, ultimately  
they are two separate, disconnected things. That's why Picard's body could  
be "burnt", so to speak, but his soul remained "pure".

     In _1984_, Orwell's premise concerning humanity is different. While a  
human person is still composed of a body and a soul, there is no split  
between the two, i.e. body and soul form a complete organic union, at all  
times. There is no place where the body leaves off and the soul begins.  
Consequently, whatever affects the body also affects the soul, and  
vice-versa. This is why a torturer _can_ get inside you, if she is good  
enough.
      
> 
> Well, enough for now. 

     Now, I'm going to think about how _1984_ relates to religion, and get  
back to you on that. :-)
 
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca
> 
> "It is impossible to build a civilization on fear and hatred and  
cruelty. 
>  It would never endure."
> 
>  "Why not?"

Arthur Johnson
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu

"When I sold you, and you sold me..." -- _1984_
Date: Thursday, 24 December 1992 12:53:36 MST
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.15R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Origin of XMAS tree and XMAS wreath?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Distribution: world

In <1haf5rINN8e8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ses2@po.CWRU.Edu (S. E. Stansfield)  wrote:
# The tree is a relatively recent thing.  It originated in Europe, as I
# recall.  Wreathes, on the other hand, are very pagan.  They are generally
# yonic symbols.  (The yoni is the female sexual organ....)

  Well, partly true.  Actually, wreaths are common holiday symbols
  in many ancient cultures.  When the Maccabees originally
  celebrated Hannukah, they decorated with 'crowns', which in the
  ancient world meant a wreath.  Wreaths were standard Hannukah
  decorations until Xtianity took up the practice, at which point
  it was naturally dropped.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24564 alt.atheism:24280 alt.slack:3569
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Subject: Re: You should be a Christian because (30 words max):
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 02:21:38 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

> In article <1garhlINN3e5@aludra.usc.edu> rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan)
> >Paul Harvey said:
> >repeating from Jen Kilmer:
> >
> >>>There is a God-shaped hole in every person, and without God, a person
> >>>is empty.
> >
> >>That's another one of those Christian pickup lines, isn't it? I never
> >>realized what players you Christians are. Yo! I got your Jesus, right
> >>here! Now, let's disco! Yo! Check out the way I can point my finger up
> >>and them point my finger down, way too cool, huh?
> >
> >Which is a little classier than my initial reaction:
> >
> >I had no idea God was shaped like a burrito.
> >
> 	Hah!  Heretical pobucker!  Everybody (everybody who counts, anyway)
> knows that it's *Jesus* that's shaped like a burrito.  That's why the
> Mexican name, see?  GOD(tm, UL Approved) is shaped like a deep-dish pizza.
> 	With extra cheese.
> >Ron
> >(except that doesn't work for *every* person, does it?)
> The_Doge
> ObQuote:	"Life!  Don't talk to me about life!"
> 			- Marvin
> 
> 
> 


There is a pipe shaped hole in every human soul.

Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston      "Bob" loves much more than 
Jesus ever will.

My god can beat up your god.


--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Slaves to Jesus was Defining the kingdom of God
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.011212.639@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>> >He experienced the totality of sin on the cross by taking it all
>> >to himself, so he likely felt and had original sin on him too
>> >(as the metaphorical scapegoat)during and after the final sacrifice.
>> >I hope you don't think I'm cheesing out on this, but it goes back
>> >to the original point someone made that the sacrifice was nothing,
>> >as well as covering your point.
>> In _that_ case a _different_ question arises: Why did Jesus have to bother
>> with being a human being at all?  If he got a body so he could experience
>> humanity, and he could experience humanity _anyway_ by taking it into himself,
>> why did he even bother with the body?
>Well, why did Israel need a lamb?

If I were religious, I'd probably answer that question something like this:
Israel needed a lamb because the people lived in a culture which was accustomed
to sacrificing lambs, so they expected it, and since they expected it, God
told them to do it.

This reason doesn't work for Jesus's sacrifice, needless to say, since modern
socity no longer expects such a thing.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: About The MILITARY PURPOSE OF JONESTOWN MASSACRE
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:23:57 GMT

aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
] >In article <1992Dec15.210852.2847@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu  
] >writes:
] >>
] >> [long, imaginative post deleted]
] 
] Actually, the author should add a few characters and the required blonde femme
] fatale and we could have the basis for the screenplay for the next 007
] movie.  This blonde's brother gets killed at the "Battle of the Harvest Moon"
] by some super enemy agent and sets off for Jonestown for revenge.  At this 
] point, she meets James Bond and the fun starts.


WHAT! You Mean You are buying the CIA_SPONSORED COVERUP??????

ciao
drieux

ps: Ok, so the 'clean up team' was not as good as
some, but it did get rid of select CongressionalPersons
who were involved in Dangerous Interference in the Defense
of the Free World, and were KNOWN Communist Stooges.


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: 12/22/92   God's Promise in Hebrews 9:12
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	Neither by the blood of goats and calves,	
	but by his own blood
	he entered in once into the holy place,
	having obtained eternal redemption for us.

	Hebrews 9:12
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 29 Dec 1992 21:15:49 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <4R5HwB1w165w@topcat> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>> I disagree.  This attitude can help clear up some problems
>> in Bible interpretation, except there is no indication in the
>> Bible that this is so.  "Progressive revelation" looks appealing
>> to Christians, but far less so to Jews.  Frankly, it is rather
>> insulting to the ancient Hebrews that they were somehow too
>> simple minded to "understand" the word of their God.
>
>This seems odd considering the position of modern Talmudic Judaism which
>presupposes that "new understandings" are constantly being offered by the
>rabbis.  One example is the matter of blood atonement.  In today's rather
>sophisticated climate the "shedding of blood" is seen as primative and
>repugnant.  The Jews of that day must have been too "simple minded" to
>understand the true (modern) nature of atonement for sin.

Good point.  My paragraph which you quoted was directed to
the common practice of christianity in which the OT is co-opted
as being something which needs to be fixed ("fulfilled") by
the NT resurrection story.  Islam also claims to be a
more perfect revelation of Truth which is shown only partially
in the OT (and NT as well).  

An enlightening moment in my own spiritual journey occured
exactly when I first heard modern Jewish interpretations
of OT scriptures.  It made much more sense to me to
see these writings in the context of an entire tradition 
than to see them as a "prophecy" of NT actions.

One of the problems with this entire discussion is that
there are several ways to read texts claimed to be
sacred by some tradition.  Even for atheists, there 
are several perspectives from which the Bible could
be read.  I'd like to elaborate on this point when
I have more time.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Criticism:  "There's no logic in Christianity"
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ksand-241292125143@wintermute.apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:39:25 GMT

In article <ksand-241292125143@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com
 (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

   >In the case of Christianity I argued that attributes such as good, evil,
   >trinity, original sin, the holiness of Mary and so on can't be valid
   >attributes, because we can't even agree upon them.

  This is irrelevant to the question whether logically valid arguments
occur in Christianity. Again, provided "logically valid argument" is
used in its standard sense.

   >Anyway, if we accept that we could use premisses we can't verify, 

  The idea that "premisses must be verifiable" has no place in logic.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism