Re: *** in public is a fine thing which doesn't bother anyone

On May 2, 1:10=A0pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dan MacKay" <cal1f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:150a2546-f632-4308-9e7e-90294b52b44d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 1, 7:24 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dan MacKay wrote:
> > > On May 1, 4:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >>> *** is not immoral if two forms of birth control are used, as the
ri=
sk
> > >>> of pregnancy falls to nearly zero.
> > >> *** is immoral unless it is between a husband and wife, legally and
> > >> lawfully married.
>
> > > Where does it say that?
>
> > > Come on, let's have solid quotes and references.
>
> > Ex. 20: 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
>
> > 1 Cor. 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
> > kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor=

> > adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...
>
> And which translation is that from??
>
> You do realize that each of the different translations were altered to
> sup****t the personal beliefs of the group doing the translation.
> If the passage sounded "wrong" to them they just "re-translated" some
> of the words.
>
> <JS>
> The part about the translation sup****ting specific beliefs is not
entirely=

> true. It is certainly true in some instances, but the vast majority of
> translation errors are precisely that, translation errors.


Can you prove that?

No, I don't believe you can.

I assert that as many of those Religious peoples "translated" the
original manuscripts that when they came to a section or verse that
made them uncomfortable that they merely changed the wording or in the
case of things like the Apochrypha deleted whole chapters because the
things writen contradicted or said things they did not believe should
be said.

Now can you prove they did not?