HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NIV Translation Question
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:53:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct2.134428.15777@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.191024.29927@linus.mitre.org> szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
>>In II Kings 23:29, the KJV states that Pharoh Neco went against
>>the King of Assyria.  I have reason to believe that other foreign
>>language Bibles at the time agreed with the KJV on this. The NIV 
>>states that Neco went to help the King of Assyria.  A fragment 
>>from Mesopotamia translated in 1929 contradicted the KJV stating
>>that Neco helped the King of Assyria.
>
> [stuff on Josephus deleted]
>
>The translators of NIV stated in the NIV Preface that although
>they mainly followed the Masoretic text, they also consulted a
>wide range of available ancient text traditions and scribal writings,
>and when they are in conflict, the generally accepted principles of
>textual criticism were applied in resolving the conflict.

There are several reasons that *both* renderings may be acceptable.

First, the base Hebrew text is ambiguous.  An interlinear translation
(_The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, Ed. John R.
Kohlenberger III, 1979-1987, Zondervan) renders the literal words:

    in-days-of-him  he_went_up  Pharaoh  Neco  king-of  Egypt  to
    king-of  Assyria  to  River-of  Euphrates.

In line with this the _New Revised Standard Version_ renders it:

    In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the King of
    Assyria to the river Euphrates.

Various other translations also use a neutral rendering, or give the
idea of helping the king of Assyria or of going against him.  So the
translations are not very helpful.

Second, certain Babylonian Chronicles shed light on what happened.
The following is derived from _Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. -- A.D.
75_, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, and _Chronicles of Chaldaean
Kings_, by D. J. Wiseman.

In 612 B.C., Assyria's capital Nineveh fell to the combined forces of
Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, and Cyaxares the Mede.  The Chronicles
indicate an alliance of Assyria and Egypt at this time.  In 609 B.C.
Pharoah Neco and the last Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit, formed an
alliance to recapture the Assyrian city of Harran from Nabopolassar,
but the attempt failed.  At this time Babylon definitely became the
successor to Assyria as the leading power in the Mid-east, and
Nabopolassar effectively became the king of Assyria.

Apparently, this is the event 2 Kings 23:29 is referring to.  It is
unclear whether the biblical account means that Neco `went up' to
the Assyrian king Ashur-uballit to help him, or against Nabopolassar,
who had become the actual King of Assyria by right of conquest.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 5
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:23:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <abvE02Mm23D501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
> I mean, if Joseph (I said IF now), lied about it all,
> then the preservation of the plates is a myth and thus makes it all
> false as well.  

What about the 11 witnesses then.  None of them *ever* denied
their testimony printed inthe front of the Book of Mormon.

Yet many of them let the LDS Church, denounced Joseph Smith, and
had many reasons and opportunities to deny or recant their
tesimonies found in the front of the Book of Mormon, yet they
never did.

One can only wonder why.

> You can't say that if Joseph lied about the vision then
> there is any truth in Mormonism.  Then whole structure of Mormonism
> rest on that vision!
> 
> Do you agree?

No, I do not agree.  The contents of the Book of Mormon (the
major principles taught) transcend the accounts that exist of the
First Vision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 16:53:46 GMT

In article <69613@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes:

>Please don't confuse my speaking out against actions (homosexual or
>otherwise) as a dislike or hatred for the individuals.  The
>two are not one and the same.  It maybe for some, but not for me.

This misses the whole point.  People don't really care that much about
whether or not you like them.  They care about whether or not you are
doing them harm.  If you are teaching other people hatred, what does it
matter what *you* feel?  If you get people fired, or put into jail,
what does it matter if it is (as they say in the Corleone family) "it
was just business--nothing personal".  

Moreover, this all ignores the fact that as a Christian, you are
supposed to be doing good anyway.  In case it has escaped your
attention, other people on this group who don't appear to approve of
homosexuality have managed not to turn this into a reason to indulge in
an active program of harm. In fiftheenth century Spain, good Christians
did not approve of Jews. That didn't mean that all of them joined the
Inquisition.  If you've got to have reasons to feel you are better than
someone else you can at least keep it on a leash, and keep the bad
results down to a minimum.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 26 Sep 92 09:32:36 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <adams.717460675@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>[...]

>>You are condemned to use your noodle, Steve. A tough row to hoe for 
>>somwone in your position...but I think you'll come through okay if you
>>keep on keepin' on, as Bobby Dylan would say.
>I'll be ok...but what about the rest of the world?

>[...]

>>> Paul talk about 'milk' for the young, because they are not ready for food.
>>> Hmm...where is my copy of the Gospel of Thomas? ;-)
>>
>>Growing some teeth, eh? :)
>
>Perhaps, perhaps...you may drag me kicking and screaming someplace I never
>planned to go...but it wouldn't be the first time.

Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: METAphors, was (The Adam and Eve Thing)
Keywords: Gospel according to Frank Zappa
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Oct2.154042.13338@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:30:07 GMT

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>SHE HAD A SNAKE FOR A PET, AND AN AMULET
>SHE WAS RAISING A DWARF, BUT IT WASN'T DONE YET

>Now, tell me, are these metaphors true or false? Or are they foo or bar?
>Does she or doesn't she have a dwarf? Does it really make a difference?
>Oh, by the way, here is an interpretation you may or may not like:
>The she is Eve, the dwarf is Adam, the snake, well you know who that is,
>right?

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Metaphors are metaphors FOR something, Mr. Harvey. This would be a lousy
>metaphor for the interaction of a photon with a molecule of Rhodamine 6G.

pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>Lousy? Is that the word you prefer for bar? What would be your word for
>foo? Or are you saying that the metaphors above are all false? And I
>still wanna know if she has a dwarf or not? And this dwarf, is he a
>regular shrimp or a jumbo shrimp? BIG or SMALL? TRUE or FALSE?

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>No. I prefer Mr. Sandvik's false, but I'm prepared to go along with
>your attempt to remove that word from discussion, because what
>symbols we use to discuss this is irrelevant.

>> What would be your word for foo?

>True. But as I said, I'm prepared to go along with whatever symbols you
>provide, assuming you provide SOME, which is what I asked you to do.
>Which you STILL have not done, despite much verbiage.

So, you are saying that all the metaphors above are false? Or are you
saying that the metaphors are only false in the case of the interaction
of a photon with a molecule of Rhodamine 6G? Do you have proof that this
is the case? I'm assuming you're saying that the photon is the she and
the molecule of Rhodamine 6G is the dwarf. Am I right, or do the
metaphors escape me? And what about the snake? BIG or SMALL? TRUE or
FALSE? FOO or BAR? FUBAR?
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus For President
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep26.061838.21677@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <b04Q02vE23EG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (TONY ROSE) writes:
>>Can we say Blasphemy?
>I probably can. I thought it was kinda funny, though.
>
>>"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will
>> not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name."
>That's cool. In this passage, God is talking about his Name...I.e.
>YHWH. This dude use Jesus, which ain't God's name, but rather the Greek
>translation of the name of this guy that God walked around as for a while.
>
>-Ekr
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."


You truly ARE clueless!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered....9
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:21:46 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Sep.26.01.18.14.1992.13571@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>You are right to agree that he DID indeed teach it. And Brigham did
>>teach is as the Prophet of the Church.
>
>>According to Doctrine & Covenents (which IS connonized scripture), the
>>words of the Prophets "shall be scripture" and thus cannonizes all the
>>speaches by Joseph and Brigham.
>
>etc.
>
>It's really silly to claim to know more than the LDS about what the
>LDS faith is.  You should know from discussions about Christianity
>that it's often not obvious to an outsider how people will interpret
>their sacred texts.

This is a nice character assination on me, and that is alright, I respect
your right to do that.  I can truly understand why you are doing this
as opposed to facing the issue.  When you say, "how people will interpret
your text", I assume you mean that I am misinterpreting the above section
from the D&C?  If that is so, please explain what part is wrong.  What
should this text be saying if indeed it is not saying what I am using it
for.  When I was first learning about Mormonism, I ask my LDS friends what
they considered "Scripture".  They told me that they considered:

1) The Book Of Mormon
2) The Doctrine & Covenants
3) The Pearl Of Great Price
4) The Bible (Insofar as it is correctly translated)
5) And the words of the Prophets.

I asked them how come they considered the words of the Prophets to be
Scripture, and they read to me the above passage from the D&C that I have
quoted above. I said OK!  But now, when I refer to a passage that one of
the Prophets said and taught as Doctrine, they say, "Oh no, that isn't
LDS scripture!".  So I refer them to the above passage in the same way and
context that they referred me to it, and they do just as you have, they
tell me that I am misinterpreting it!  Well, if you guys can use it in
that context, then why am I misinterpreting it when I do the same?  It is
not logical!  So please, I reask the question, if I have indeed
misquoted this "Scripture", please inform me of two things:
(1) What is the above passage "REALLY" saying?
(2) Why do my LDS friends use this passage to prove to me that the words
    of the Prophet IS Scripture when I ask about item number 5 above?


>The LDS participants in Usenet are open enough that they have major
>disagreements with traditional Christianity.  There's an LDS FAQ that

I am particulary grateful of this "openess" too.  I enjoy talking about
the subject.  If your church has the "Truth" then I want in on it too!
Likewise, if your church has the "Truth", the "Truth" should withstand
the test of exposure and you shouldn't feel threatened when questioned.

BTW, this LDS FAQ, is it put together by our BYU friends, or by other
Mormons, or is it put together by non-Mormons?  Either way, I'd like to
take a look at it!

In Love and Christ,
-tony
From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:41:30 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

666 lines long!  You crack me up!  And here I thought you were serious. :)

Wulf                    | "Martha, it's another one of those CS majors asking
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu |  if cow chips are pin-compatible with 68040s..."
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:09:23 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep29.191756.4141@watson.ibm.com> jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
|rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts):
|> No you are for you don't want to conform - we have to conform to some 
|> extent.
|then draw the line for us, pitts -- don't weasel out of
|your "religious" (sneer quotes) fascist position on family

sneer is in the eye of the beholder - if you don't like my
comments, then you have made your choice.  

|values.  tell us to what extent society should make us
|conform, especially regarding the family.  don't forget,

I don't think homosexual relations should be given the same
status as hetrosexual ones (i.e., marriage rights) nor
should there be laws to force the hiring of homosexuals as
a minority (even though there is only 1-2% of people who are
exclusively homosexual for a life time.) 

|however, that there are more perspectives to society than
|just your brand of "religion."

I am well aware of this.  But yet I still have the right
to speak, don't I?  I can still influence OR are you intolerate
of my brand's views and ability to influence?

|and why do you ignore me, pitts?  it isn't because i'm

Sorry for ignoring you - hopefully, it hasn't caused too much glee for you.

|a homosexual, is it?  or is it that your tyrannical
|position is so weak that it can't be justified in the face
|of a successful alternative?  come on, pitts, if you're
|going to eradicate the cultural elite, you'll need to face
|us at some point...

The only tyrannical people I've every met was the group 
Queer Nation one Sunday at a Cracker Barrel.  Everyone except
the employees had left due to the grand actions of the group. :-)
I and my fiance came in and suprisingly there were no tables
to sit at, for the group had split-up and ran to all the tables,
as we found out later.  However, the managment pulled us a
table out of the back and we did eat.  My it was lovely.  
Everyone came by and expressed their happiness for our being
there that day. NOT.  The continually harrassed us - they
got some chants going - they pointed their fingers at us, 
but wouldn't shake my hand, when I offerred it - they even
video taped us.  The guy with the video camera suggested
that 'discriminating' against a homosexual was similar to
discriminating against my having a beard.  [ I guess if they
are they similar then there is no problem, for my beard is
a preference, and I would shave it, if my job required, for
I've done so before.]

|Queer Without A Cause!
|Jason Coughlin ( jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
So it was a choice???

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:01:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <69247@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) wrote:
> I addressed this in another reply to this thread.  Effectively, I said
> that there is much scriptural support in the gospels and Revelation,
> along with the writings of Paul, to support a long period of time
> between Jesus' departure to prepare a place for us and His return.
> Many events have to take place.

Then I'm sure you also have a plausible explanation to the size
of a disciples lifetime. About 2000 years, or so?

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 2
Date: 26 Sep 92 12:30:34 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bv5xuD.7AA@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
[...]
>>> This is in print in every copy of the book MORMON DOCTRINE, 
>>> and he was an Apostle of the church.  
>> 
>> I don't believe he was an apostle when he wrote it.
>> He became one some time after the book was published.
> [...]
> McConkie was sustained a member of the First Council of the
> Seventy October 6, 1946 at 31 years of age. 
>
> After he wrote _Mormon Doctrine_, he was ordained an apostle 
> on October 12, 1972.

Thank you for providing the dates.  I was unsure of them.

> For those who wish to distance themselves from _Mormon 
> Doctrine_, the question arises: If the book was full of holes, 
> why was McConkie awarded as an Apostle *after* he wrote it?

Two points.

1. Being called to be an Aposlte is not an award or reward,
MOormons view it as a calling from God.

2. _Mormon Docrtine_ was first published in 1958 and revised in 
1966 and 1978 (1979?).  This seems to indicate that there was no
connection with the publishing of the book and and McConkie's
status in the church as a General Authority.  To be made an
apostle 14 years *after* one produces a work, and 6 years after
one revises the same work seems to be a rather bizzarre time
frame for any course of action.

(Yes, Johnson, we think that the work you have done for the
company today is so valuable that we're going to make you a full
partner ... 14 years from now.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:03:46 GMT
	<1992Sep30.014457.25899@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: noitazinagrO

In article <1992Sep30.014457.25899@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <BvD58q.Fz5@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Of what use is an accurate metaphor?  
>>Of what use is an true metaphor?     
>>Of what use is an false metaphor?   

>Whether or not something is useful is rather different from whether or not
>something is _there_.

Yes, utility and existance are two different concepts.

>Does this mean that you now admit these things exist,
>and you merely disagree over whether or not they are useful?

Ah, you lost me. What exists? Metaphor? I never said metaphor did not exist
and certainly I find some metaphors to be quite useful. Are you refering to
the metaphor of the earth being carried on the back of a turtle and asking
if I think this metaphorical turtle exists? That's a very strange question,
don't you think? If this turtle exists, it is only metaphorically, of course.
Example: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Now you ask me, "does
this rose by any other name smelling as sweet exist?" How am I to answer
such a question? Can you?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17477 alt.atheism:18249
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:50:06 GMT
	<BvD9Dp.Gw3@inews.Intel.COM> <1992Sep30.020907.26438@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: All things are ... things

In article <1992Sep30.020907.26438@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>The meaning of "absolute truth" to me is such that if a statement X is only
>true under condition Y, then the combined statement "statement X is true under
>condition Y" is absolutely true.
>For instance, the statement "1+1=0" is not absolutely true, but it is true for
>mod2 arithmetic.  This means, however, that the combined statement "1+1=0
>under mod2 arithmetic" is _absolutely_ true, under my definition.
>Since you imply that I cannot produce examples of absolute truth, you must
>obviously be using some different definition, one which I do not know.

An absolute truth is true regardless of reference. You have fabricated some
absolute truths by controlling the frame of reference, which is kinda cheating.If I conceive of a frame of reference as defined by me, surely I can also
conceive of truths in this frame of reference. And I can say that these
truths are absolutely true in my frame of reference. But, that is cheating,
isn't it? Is that the only way to make absolute truths? Is everything only
relative to the observer? Do we all perceive our own speed of light, relative
to our frame of reference?

>>OK, here is how I use the word faith:
>>I have faith that my car will start tonight, even though I know from 
>>experience that this is not always the case. But I think it's fixed this 
>>time and will start. I have faith, I'm not calling the tow truck, yet!

>You seem to think I don't understand your definition.  I do.  I don't
>understand the _usefulness_ of the definition.

If I had no faith in my car starting, I would call the tow truck everytime,
just in case. So my faith in my car starting saves me a great deal of money,
even though, sometimes I have to bit the bullet and call. Is that _useful_?

>Why should the possibility be slightly disturbing?  Is there some kind of law
>of disturbingness which requires that it must disturb me unless there's some
>special reason otherwise?

When you fly in a plane, does the possibility of crash disturb you? What if
one of the engines blows up? Chances are that the pilot can still land, but
does the increased possibility of crash disturb you? When you invest in
stock, does the possibility that you can lose all your investment disturb
you at all?