In article <3c73p1l8uqun7cotdjk79tk4rfer4803fs@4ax.com>,
<MichaellikeGod@heaven> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 04:39:02 -0500, "::Y-Not::" <+10$-Y-Not@here.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <s6bkf.248023$dZ.61328@fe02.news.easynews.com>, PM
> ><@cannon.bang> wrote:
> >
> >> "::Y-Not::" <+10$-Y-Not@here.com> wrote in news:021220052005488903%+10$-
> >> Y-Not@here.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <qfc0p19tdrf0aadve5mv52g11puil0v962@4ax.com>,
> >> > <MichaellikeGod@heaven> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:50:51 -0600, Bellamy <dot@dot.cum> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> LOL...indirectly to your lost and hopeless soul.
> >> >>
> >> >> I pray you enjoy God's curse He brings upon you!
> >> >>
> >> >> God Bless
> >> >>
> >> >> t Michael t
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Let us see here:
> >> > You say God will curse him? And then you tell God to bless him?
> >> > But before that, you pray he should ENJOY God's curse?
> >> >
> >> > Before you should preach to some "lost and hopeless soul", you really
> >> > should work on your own lost, hopeless, and very confused soul.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In my previous last post to you, I tried to lead you to understand
> >> > something. You dismissed me before we finished. We continue now,
> >> > because you REALLY need help.
> >> >
> >> > The Bible as we know it today, was written by many people, mostly from
> >> > what other people told them, and then only certain parts of the
> >> > available holy texts were voted to be included in it, based mostly on
> >> > the political climate of the time. EDITORS! :-/
> >> > And THEN, we have translations, which were also influenced by the
> >> > political climate of the times, and sometimes even intentionally.
> >> > Example; in the King James version, Exodus 22:17-19, it says "Thou
> >> > shalt not suffer a witch to live." Translated from the original Hebrew,
> >> > into idiomatic American English, that would be (my emphasis) "Execute
> >> > all POISONERS". In the King Games translation, the translator was
> >> > ordered to change the word, because Witches ("Wise Women, or Wiccans)
> >> > practiced effective herbal medicine and euthanasia, all of which were
> >> > against the doctrine of the Church at the time, that people should NOT
> >> > have their God willed suffering be ameliorated, and was deliberately
> >> > intended to justify persecution of Pagans.
> >> > Even with honest translation, what results is imperfect, because it is
> >> > done by imperfect man, with his own culture, biases and knowledge
> >> > acting to influence what he does. But there is more. To most
> >> > effectively translate from one language to another, one must understand
> >> > the culture of the person who created the original story.
> >> > Example:
> >> > On more than one Gospel It is said
> >> > ***
> >> >> Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto
> >> >> you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the
> >> >> kingdom of heaven.
> >> >> And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to
> >> >> go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
> >> >> enter into the kingdom of God.
> >> > ***
> >> > In reality, at the time, this was a common saying to illustrate the
> >> > impossible. "The Eye of the Needle" was the nickname of a very small
> >> > gate into Jerusalem, that a camel could squeeze through, but not with a
> >> > rich man's belongings strapped to it.
> >> > So, the saying went, "it's as possible as a rich man's camel passing
> >> > through the Eye of the Needle".
> >> > Because of this, it's quite likely that the passage in the Bible was
> >> > actually CREATED to give relevance to a figure of speech that the
> >> > writer didn't understand.
> >> > Another example:
> >> > Many times the Bible refers to something happening THREE TIMES, from
> >> > donkey things, to Peter disowning Jesus.
> >> > This is actually amusing, because the writers actually CREATED stories
> >> > around another figure of speech. Yes, that's what it was. It was used
> >> > for emphasis, and NOT meant to be taken literally. "You will do this
> >> > three times" actually means, "You bet your a** you will!" Jesus said
> >> > this figure of speech to Peter, not to be taken literally, but to add
> >> > emphasis to his statement. But the Gospel writers, in not understanding
> >> > this, CREATED scenes to make it literally true!
> >> > There are many more things in the Bible like this.
> >> >
> >> > So, is the Bible the exact word of God, or fallible imperfect man's
> >> > interpretation of history?
> >> >
> >> > There is one more thing to add to this.
> >> > The various parts of the Bible were written in different languages,
> >> > none of them being modern languages we now use. They were ancient
> >> > Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and probably a few others. At the time
> >> > of it's finalization, the Bible was written in Greek, as that was the
> >> > language of higher education then. The various parts have been
> >> > translated into other languages, and then translated again, and each
> >> > translator has produced different results, that get added to by the
> >> > next. There is a reason for this. Those who study Human languages, know
> >> > they are different. So different in fact, that perfect translation from
> >> > one language to another is impossible. The reasons for this are very
> >> > difficult to explain to someone who hasn't studied this, but they are
> >> > very real.
> >> > Given all this, it's just not possible that the various versions and
> >> > translations of the Bible, WHICH ARE NOT THE SAME, can all be the exact
> >> > word of God. We will never have it, from what we know exists at this
> >> > time. What we do have, is a Great Book, with all kinds of wonderfully
> >> > useful teachings in it, and a historical record which is as accurate
> >> > and inaccurate as any other historical record.
> >> >
> >> > Monotheism is against human nature. Worshiping a deity one can't see,
> >> > is even more against human nature. Man usually finds a way to act in
> >> > accordance with his nature, even if he has to lie to himself, in order
> >> > to do it. So we can't see God, but we NEED to worship something
> >> > physical, so we choose a torture device to worship, or graven images of
> >> > people, such as Mary, to worship, or rotting body parts of "Saints" and
> >> > other artifacts, or Russian paintings. And we also choose a BOOK to
> >> > worship. Is it truly God's creation? In a way it is, in the sense that
> >> > all reality is God's creation. So why do we worship only that book that
> >> > is written by man, as His Word, when we can see His Words in EVERYTHING
> >> > he has directly created? Look all around you, to see God for real. The
> >> > Book isn't him, EVERYTHING but what is created by humans with the free
> >> > will he gave us, IS Him.
> >> >
> >> > It really IS a Good Book, but it's not perfect. But then, neither are
> >> > we. He made us that way. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Do I expect you to agree with any of this? Not really, at this time.
> >> > But anything's possible, right? :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Take care,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Y Not
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Opening the mind can open the heart.
> >> > Opening the heart can open the mind."
> >> >
> >>
> >> Go get him Y-Not. Unfortunately the fault of all this is my beloved
> >> Akenhaten (meaning) "THE GLORY OF ATEN" or "HE WHO IS EFFECTIVE ON THE
> >> ATENs BEHALF". who delcared that there should be only one god. Nothing
> >> has gone right since then to this very day.LOL, and the hypocracy
> >> continues unabated. PM.
> >
> >
> >Sorry PM, he has blinded himself. The only light he sees is his own.
> >He says the Bible is the True Word of God, but he neglects to tell us
> >which of the many DIFFERENT translations is the "real" one.
> >Anyway, NO English translation can be the real one, because it isn't
> >even a direct translation
> >He is unable to understand academic discourse. When I related to him
> >the common saying that was in place in the culture that was described
> >in the Bible, he accused me of misquoting the Bible, even though I had
> >actually included the actual quote with it. Or maybe he just doesn't
> >know how to read.
> >He doesn't understand the concept of language. I told him that the
> >original Hebrew word means "poisoner", and that it has been
> >deliberately mistranslated. This can be verified by any Hebrew scholar,
> >and is well known by most academic Bible scholars. I'm not guessing in
> >this. When I was a child, I was forced to learn to read various
> >versions of the Bible, and other Holy books, in many of their original
> >languages; Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I couldn't manage Arabic and
> >Sanskrit, although the latter did help me a little with the Thai
> >language. I was never able to understand those language spoken, and
> >could never speak them myself, and I've forgotten most of all of that.
> >Well, I wasn't really interested. I'm still not, actually. :-)
> >I have NO talent for languages!
> >
> >Religious devotion can be a good thing, when it's based on open
> >thought, and due deliberation. In his case, his NEED he acquired for
> >him to commit to his current fanatical state, was caused by some
> >severely damaging past experiences. Instead of healing and recovering
> >from them, he submerged them with a form of internal mind control. It
> >could have been anything, but in this case, it was his personal version
> >of Christianity, that he has made into his amour against the perceived
> >blackness of his soul. He has traded one mental prison for another. It
> >is also his crutch, which prevents his mind and soul from healing.
> >Faith isn't logical, and the use of it can't penetrate the
> >rationalizations of the fanatic. They will literally NOT see what would
> >shake their faith, as we can see by his responses to my posts, which
> >would have drawn good reviews from true Bible scholars of many faiths,
> >and ah, sort of has. :-)
> >
> >You know I'm well aware of Akenhaten and what he did. And also what
> >those who came after him did to his memory and what he had established.
> >They tried to remove him completely from history, and almost succeeded.
> >And boy did he look FUNNY! As was Tut uncommon ly beautiful. :-)
> >
> >
> >Take care,
> >
> >
> >Y Not
> >
> >
> > "Opening the mind can open the heart.
> > Opening the heart can open the mind."
> Do you say what you mean?
> Do you mean what you say?
To both questions:
Not many do, because they don't make the effort. I do. Always. And, it
seems, at a deeper level than you are presently able to understand.
> Answer both questions using them in the proper context!
The questions stand alone, so there is no context, proper or otherwise.
They depend on no other statements to be fully understood.
I don't think you understand what "context" means, and it's proper
usage. In this case, it's more than you can learn just from a
dictionary. It requires real education.
> This is a test to know if you understand the proper english language.
I have taught it. :-)
You should capitalize "English".
> If you don't understand the context to the two questions above,
> consult a good english dictionary.
Well, are there bad ones?
There is nothing in any dictionary that will help anyone to "understand
the context to the two questions above", which don't actually exist.
You should capitalize "English".
> t Michael t
>
One doesn't become a psychologist and published author, as I have,
without understanding the language he uses, very well. :-)
PM also has a PhD, and he is probably the oldest of all of us. He will
verify my ability for you. That you don't recognize it from my writing,
shows a serious lack in own ability with English, and not in mine.
I write as would a college professor. This is somewhat reasonable,
having been one. :-)
Take care,
"He who knows, knows he doesn't."
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
|