"::Y-Knot::" <$$-Y-Knot@here.com> wrote in
news:041220050718224268%$$-Y-Knot@here.com:
> 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."
>
Consider it verified. PM.
|
| 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 |
|