[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message


There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
can read our minds. If we don't follow his rules, we'll
burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh? ;-)


the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Paranoid illusions noted.


that's waht happens when one's eyes are gouged.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the *sloppy *translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
thousands of translators got it wrong?



Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated from Greek,
not from the original Hebrew.
BTW, where is the 'original one'?
People have been playing "telephone" with it for thousands of years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?

Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
usage of the Bible text in its origional language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that some older English
translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
on a Hebrew version of a very similar collection of books called the
Masoretic Text (MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
;-)


the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
thread.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. *A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
usage of the Bible text in its origional language.

What you've Probably *confused in your weak mind is that some older English
translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
on a Hebrew version of a *very similar collection of books called the
Masoretic Text (MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.


You idiot
MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.
LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly parted.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message







On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
;-)

the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
thread.-


There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
You must think that they really happened.

[BretLudwig]

Basically two schools of Bible translation exist, with respect to the
original source documents, the "Textus Receptus" school, and the
archaelogical school. The "TR" school believes the common and easily found
text is the right one because Jeboo Sr, preserved it inerrantly inasmuch as
He would not countenance error, The archaelogocal school rounds up "the
fustest with the mostest" scraps and compares them diligently. Members of
the first school in the Anglosphere tend to be King James Version
fetishists, who assign a Marianist iconhood to the version Authorized by
the old rump ranger King James, which moots the issue for them.

They also HATE the Apocrypha, even though it's in the 1611 Authorized
Version, consistency being a short suit with these dopes. KJV Only
fetishists tend to have particularly low IQs, which is why the fetishize
it exactly like the real Semites (Arabs) fetishize THEIR green holy book,
the Koran. Neither being very bright, the commonality is obvious.

It's like Trekkies arguing which version of any episode of Star Trek is
canonical, the originally aired network one, the ones trimmed for added
commercial time for 1970s-1990s reruns, the ones put on UMatic video for
institutional and cable use early on, the consumo release on VHS, the
early DVD, or the remastered and enhanced (and PC-circumcized at points)
late night aired or remastered DVD releases now in vogue. Or....do you go
by James Blish's novelizations, which were from original script drafts and
often have differing plot changes or character names? Are the animated
sshows canonical or apochryphal? Is Blish's early novel "Spock Must Die"
canonical??

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 9:44�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

That's not true. Different versions used different manuscripts.


All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.


As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
judgment calls.

Not always.


But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? But thanks for the
regurgitated religious dogma anyway.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 9:47�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
can read our minds. �If we don't follow his rules, we'll
burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what? You make no sense, as usual.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 12:47�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated
from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. �A great deal of the New Testament was originally written in
Greek by people who spoke Greek. So translating much of the Bible from Greek
is not the mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a correct
usage of the Bible text in its origional language.

What you've Probably �confused in your weak mind is that some older English
translations of the Old Testament were based on a Greek translation of some
of the books of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and have based their work
on a Hebrew version of a �very similar collection of books called the
Masoretic Text (MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old
Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic
Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.

Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that Catholic
Church imposed on the text during the Middle Ages. For instance, the
section of the Book of Mark that discusses Jesus and his real views
about homosexuality were suppressed several times. The book you read
now hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been censored
and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil institution. It's really
Satan's finest work in many ways.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 1:01�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
;-)

the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
thread.-

There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
You must think that they really happened.-

Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
Salemanship. It's all salesmanship. And Arny even bought the
extended warranty.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your ignorance.

Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that Catholic
Church imposed on the text during the Middle Ages. For instance, the
section of the Book of Mark that discusses Jesus and his real views
about homosexuality were suppressed several times. The book you read
now hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been censored
and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil institution. It's really
Satan's finest work in many ways.

The Krooborg is trying to argue that the Booble is full of his beloved
"facts". I'm sure we've all heard this garbage befo Their Booble was
written by their precious "God" Who is all-knowing and all-controlling.
Once you accept that "fact", the rest of it goes down much easier. Sort of
like condoms full of drugs, come to think of it.

Arnii's dementia is dug in deep, and everybody can see it.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 1:01�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:05, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 17 Noi, 19:13, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message
There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.
So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul,
etc. were all lying?-
Or the people who actually wrote those stories were
lying.

Christianity and Judiasm are all a big conspiracy, eh?
;-)

the underlying books are fables and fairy tales

Prove it, only don't wet yourself in public like you just did in the other
thread.-

There are all those floobydust "miracles" that it describes.
You must think that they really happened.

I've seen more and more Christians these days "claim" more progressive
views, and that there is new thinking in the church when it comes to
explaining all of the giant gaps of logic and reason in the Bible. At
the same time, they still have to say that every word in the Bible is
true. So when you tell them that the Bible condones the killings of
homosexuals, runaway slaves and womenfolk who speak out in church,
they say, "Oh, those are the old ways." When you ask them to show you
the part where the rules were changed and God said "I made a mistake,"
they usually get all flustered and spout dogma.

Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are becoming
elaborate IKYABWAIs. They're weak and ineffectual and signify that
Arny is really struggling to maintain his delusion persona of the
pseudo-expert. He's unraveling. I'm not just saying that as a
"debating trade" tactic. I'm saying it because it's pretty obvious to
almost everyone at this point.

Arny has a severe personality disorder. It's textbook. Either he has
to pull a Howard and say "just kidding, everyone...it's just an act"
or we have to seriously consider whether or not it's fair play to
engage someone who desperately needs talking therapy and anti-
psychotic medication.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 10:18�am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the �sloppy �translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every one of those
thousands of translators got it wrong?

Many, especially ones used by Christians, were translated from Greek,
not from the original Hebrew.
BTW, where is the 'original one'?
People have been playing "telephone" with it for thousands of years.

The problem is that there is no "original text" that everyone is
copying. The books of the Bible were written by different men who
lived in different areas and spoke in different languages. When Arny
suggests that it was all written in one language or the other in the
beginning, he's clearly full of ****.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 18, 9:44?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later
translations aren't based on earlier ones. BTW, that is
the meaning of translation - a translation starts out
with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

That's not true.

First you disagree with me.

Different versions used different
manuscripts.

Then you agree with me in a way that destroys your contradiction.

All translations of the Bible were based on the best
original documents available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.

Prove it.

As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts,
the later translations used earlier documents, and
compared more documents when making judgment calls.

Not always.

Yes, always. Even the Septuagent involved about 70 different scholars, who
in turn had the run of the Library at Alexandrea, which is still a legend.

But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? But thanks for
the regurgitated religious dogma anyway.

Well Marc, its clear that if you disagree with it, it *has* to be wrong.
You're a god unto yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
decades also for Catholic Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.

You idiot

You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.

MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.

And that contradicts what I said, how?

LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
parted.

And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the King James, ca. 17th
century, how?

You're just talking trash, Art.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 17:49, Boon wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

That's not true. *Different versions used different manuscripts.



All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.



Well, I have to say for early people, they did get some universal
things right
about promoting civilized moral behavior, though they missed the boat
on slavery
and gay sex.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 18, 12:47?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. ?A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably ?confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a ?very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
decades also for Catholic Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.

Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that
Catholic Church imposed on the text during the Middle
Ages.

Yes, and the protestants tolerated that up until present times?

What have you been smoking, boy? ;-)

For instance, the section of the Book of Mark that
discusses Jesus and his real views about homosexuality
were suppressed several times.

Umm, your misinterpretation of Mark 7:14-16?

The book you read now
hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been
censored and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil
institution.

You're absolutely nuts, Marc. The Bible has been translated by any number of
very indepedent groups of translators and also individual translators. Many
of them had diametrically-opposed theologies.

As usual, we've got Marc spewing paranoid conspiracy theories.

It's really Satan's finest work in many
ways.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his rules, we'll
burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what?

Exactly what you wrote above.

Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
Salemanship. It's all salesmanship. And Arny even bought the
extended warranty.

Actually, I heard Krooger got the deluxe plan, which includes a miracle of
the buyer's choice. Arnii selected the Toilet of Perpetual Overflowing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message







On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).
The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
decades also for Catholic Bibles.
IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.
You idiot

You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.

MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more recent.

And that contradicts what I said, how?

it contradicts that modern translations
are correctly taken form original text
its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.





LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
parted.

And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the King James, ca. 17th
century, how?


you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea parted
thousands
of years before that, and the fable was written down thousands of
years before the 17th century


You're just talking trash, Art.-


you are making **** up, like
you didn't even need to, you already have
too much of the real deal.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 19:19, George M. Middius wrote:
Boon said:

Many theologians have proved that most of the miracles never happened.
Early translations indicate that many stories in the Bible were meant
as parables, but somehow Christians decided it would be easier to sell
the idea of their religion if they made it more fantastic.
Salemanship. *It's all salesmanship. *And Arny even bought the
extended warranty.

Actually, I heard Krooger got the deluxe plan, which includes a miracle of
the buyer's choice. Arnii selected the Toilet of Perpetual Overflowing.

Its no miracle, its just that his toilet got clogged up
with too many 'used' $1,000 checks.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:51�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 18, 9:44?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later
translations aren't based on earlier ones. BTW, that is
the meaning of translation - a translation starts out
with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).
That's not true.

First you disagree with me.

�Different versions used different
manuscripts.

Then you agree with me in a way that destroys your contradiction.

All translations of the Bible were based on the best
original documents available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.

Prove it.

As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts,
the later translations used earlier documents, and
compared more documents when making judgment calls.
Not always.

Yes, always. Even the Septuagent involved about 70 different scholars, who
in turn had the run of the Library at Alexandrea, which is still a legend..

But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!
Wait...isn't that the job of Christians? �But thanks for
the regurgitated religious dogma anyway.

Well Marc, its clear that if you disagree with it, it *has* to be wrong.
You're a god unto yourself.

Religious dogma, every word.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:55�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 17:49, Boon wrote:





On Nov 18, 9:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

That's not true. �Different versions used different manuscripts..

All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

Written by primitive men, not God.

Well, I have to say for early people, they did get some universal
things right
about promoting civilized moral behavior, though they missed the boat
on slavery
and gay sex.

Religion is nothing more than a social control. Make people believe
that there is an afterlife where they will be judged, and they'll
behave. It's not brain surgery to see the intent behind all of this.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 18, 12:47?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. ?A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably ?confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a ?very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).

The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations
of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent
decades also for Catholic Bibles.

IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.

Your "theory" does not address the enormous changes that
Catholic Church imposed on the text during the Middle
Ages.

Yes, and the protestants tolerated that up until present times?

The Protestants lived in the Middle Ages? Is that what you're trying
to say?


What have you been smoking, boy? ;-)

More pedophilic fantasies?


For instance, the section of the Book of Mark that
discusses Jesus and his real views about homosexuality
were suppressed several times.

Umm, your misinterpretation of Mark 7:14-16?

Nope, not even close. You have no clue about the Missing Gospel since
your church has repressed it for you.



�The book you read now
hasn't been improperly translated as much as it has been
censored and shaped to fit the agenda of a very evil
institution.

You're absolutely nuts, Marc. The Bible has been translated by any number of
very indepedent groups of translators and also individual translators. Many
of them had diametrically-opposed theologies.

So you're saying that if a bunch of guys worked on it, it must be
correct? Apparently you haven't tried Vista.


As usual, we've got Marc spewing paranoid conspiracy theories.

No, we don't. That's your projection. And the more you do it, the
more you confirm my observations.


It's really Satan's finest work in many
ways.

No response? You really are worshipping the Devil, you know. It says
so in the Bible.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 3:58�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky and
can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his rules, we'll
burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.
I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what?

Exactly what you wrote above.

Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

No. Why the **** did you try to pull this out of your ass? As the
day goes on, your disorder becomes more obvious.


LOL!

Not so much. I'm remembering my psychology more and more. You're
less amusing than you used to be. You're just in need of help.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 18, 3:58?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky
and can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his
rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for all of
eternity.
I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what?

Exactly what you wrote above.

Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

No.

OK Marc, so you were lying again, like the habitual liar that you are. You
call that normal? LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" wrote in message


Make
people believe that there is an afterlife where they will
be judged, and they'll behave.

Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason to behave, and so
Marc acts like he does.

[Arny Krueger]

Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message







On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and
every one of those thousands of translators got it
wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).
The MT is also widely used as the basis for
translations of the Old Testament in Protestant
Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic Bibles.
IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.
You idiot

You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.

MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more
recent.

And that contradicts what I said, how?

it contradicts that modern translations
are correctly taken form original text
its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.

No it doesn't. The MT is far from being the only authority that is used.

Besides Art, you're arguing with yourself.

LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
parted.

And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the
King James, ca. 17th century, how?

you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea
parted thousands
of years before that, and the fable was written down
thousands of years before the 17th century

OSAF.

You're just talking trash, Art.-

you are making **** up,

Not at all, in fact I can back everything I said with references from
authoritative sources.

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" habitually lied in message


Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are
becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.

Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.

Stop lying Marc, if you can.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 18, 11:44*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 6:06?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the ?sloppy
?translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and every
one of those thousands of translators got it wrong?
It was like playing telephone...each translation made
more mistakes.

As usual Marc, you've got things very wrong.

Bible translations are not serial translations. Later translations aren't
based on earlier ones. BTW, that is the meaning of translation - a
translation starts out with the best available manuscripts in the original
language(s).

All translations of the Bible were based on the best original documents
available in their day.

As archeology discovered more and earlier manuscripts, the later
translations used earlier documents, and compared more documents when making
judgment calls.

But keep making up those fairy tales, Marc!

I suggest you study what happened in Constantinople, GOIA, where the
"valid" contents of your bible were voted on.

[clanker]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Boon" habitually lied in message


Look at Arny's arguments here. More and more they are
becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.

Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.


.....like your talking snake ?

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 21:59, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Clyde Slick" wrote in message







On 18 Noi, 18:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 18 Noi, 15:47, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in
message



On 18 Noi, 09:06, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Then there's the problem with all of the sloppy
translations.

Literally 100s of translations of the Bible, and
every one of those thousands of translators got it
wrong?
Many, especially ones used by Christians, were
translated from Greek, not from the original Hebrew.

Wrong again. A great deal of the New Testament was
originally written in Greek by people who spoke Greek.
So translating much of the Bible from Greek is not the
mistake that you make it out to be, but instead it is a
correct usage of the Bible text in its origional
language.

What you've Probably confused in your weak mind is that
some older English translations of the Old Testament
were based on a Greek translation of some of the books
of the Old Testament that is called the Septuagint.

However, Bible translators have long had access, and
have based their work on a Hebrew version of a very
similar collection of books called the Masoretic Text
(MT).
The MT is also widely used as the basis for
translations of the Old Testament in Protestant
Bibles, and in recent decades also for Catholic Bibles.
IOW Art, as usual you are talking trash due to your
ignorance.
You idiot

You keep on talking trash Art, like the following.

MT dates to about 700 AD, maybe even a little more
recent.
And that contradicts what I said, how?
it contradicts that modern translations
are correctly taken form original text
its been played with many hundreds and thousands of years.

No it doesn't. The MT is far from being the only authority that is used.



LOL!!!!
You yourself brought it up as the prevalent one


Besides Art, you're arguing with yourself.


LOL
GOIA!!!!!


LOL!!! I don't think that is when the Red Sea supposedly
parted.

And that is relevant to Bible translations such as the
King James, ca. 17th century, how?
you are an imbecile, the fable has it that the Red Sea
parted thousands
of years before that, and the fable was written down
thousands of years before the 17th century

OSAF.


Thanks for making my point, there is NO fact
regarding the parting of the Dead Seaqd
and all the other Biblical fairy tales that you believe iin.





You're just talking trash, Art.-
you are making **** up,

Not at all, in fact I can back everything I said with references from
authoritative sources.-

Let's bring Rev Matt into this discussion
of your floobydust beliefs.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Noi, 22:00, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" habitually lied in

Look at Arny's arguments here. *More and more they are
becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.

Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.



Yes, you have been cited by an authoritarian source, you have been
cited by a MSP detective for storing kp
on your hard drive for three years.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Let's bring Rev Matt into this discussion
of your floobydust beliefs.

I hardly think that's fair to poor Arnii. The Rev is always preaching about
being a good *living* person, give love and support to those who need it,
and other virtuous stuff. Religious dogma is mere "debating trade" fodder
for the Krooborg. He has no use for all that moralistic crap he gets from
Pastor Matt.

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:54�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message







On Nov 18, 3:58?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



On Nov 18, 9:47?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



There's this big invisible guy who lives in the sky
and can read our minds. ?If we don't follow his
rules, we'll burn in a lake of fire for all of
eternity.
I don't think it gets any more paranoid than that.

True Marc, and you made it all up on your own.

Made up what?

Exactly what you wrote above.

Oh, someone told you that, and you actually believed it?

No.

OK Marc, so you were lying again, like the habitual liar that you are. You
call that normal? LOL!

You have a habit of calling people liars when you don't understand
what they're telling you.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 6:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" wrote in message



Make
people believe that there is an afterlife where they will
be judged, and they'll behave.

Which says that non-believers like Marc have no reason to behave, and so
Marc acts like he does.

Actually, studies prove that atheists are more ethical in morally
ambiguous situations than Christians. Christians tend not to worry
about making the right choice because they can always ask for
forgiveness later. Atheists tend to do the right thing the first time
since they now there is no afterlife for "extra credit" assignments.

Boon

[Boon]

On Nov 18, 7:00�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Boon" habitually lied in

Look at Arny's arguments here. �More and more they are
becoming elaborate IKYABWAIs.

Not at all. In fact I've been cited authoritative sources.

There's nothing authoritative about religion. No single human knows
any more than any other single human about what happens after we die.
It's all guessing.


Stop lying Marc, if you can.

About what? Do you really think that calling people liars when you're
upset solves anything?

Boon

[Ian Mitchell[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Boon" wrote in message

On Nov 17, 1:53?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On Nov 17, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's what the Middiot's posse have managed to
accomplish. If you consider the fact that they have
even managed to drive off some very determined
posters, such as Greg Singh, their accomplishments are
truly something to consider.
All of those poor people! And George totally destroyed
their ability to discuss audio!

You're a prime example, ****R. :-(

Of course, there's no evidence that you ever could
discuss audio.

There's no evidence of God or Jesus, but that doesn't
stop you from believing.

So, Josephus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. were all lying?



The reference to Jesus (Chrestus) that appears in Josephus, has long been
accepted by scholars and theologins to be a forgery, inserted at a later
date by 'honest' christian editor/s. If you don't know this Arny, then you
are simply not well enough read to debate the topic. As for the other
sources, written up to 100 years after the death of Jesus by people who
never knew him, supposedly guided by a 'holy' spirit, well, as the reported
words of Jesus himself make plain, 'By their fruits shall ye know them'. I
suggest you widen your reading to bring yourself up to date, and you could
do far worse than to start with 'The Unorthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox
(a brilliant scholar known best for his seminal work on the life of
Alexander the Great). A warning!! if anything of your mind remains open,
then your world is about to turn upside down.