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

"Dan MacKay" <cal1free@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:69257016-a5a0-4b7e-ac27-851b4d75d42d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 May 2, 1:10 pm, "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 
> > >>> risk
> > >>> 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?



<JS>
Your assertion is noted, and dismissed.

The original texts of the books of the Bible were written in several 
different languages, and some were translated from language A to language
B 
to language C, and the different translations themselves create errors
that 
then create other errors when tranlsated again.

I know of no Bible translation that says *** in public is good, I know of
no 
Bible translation that says *** outside of marriage is good. Indeed, I
know 
of no Bible translation that does not say *** outside of marriage is bad,
so 
any translation issue that might exist from one version of the Bible to 
another, the topic of *** outside of marriage is steady and constant, and 
therefore moot on the issue of translations serving the needs of the
people 
doing the translating.

Clearly there are versions of the Bible that express an agenda, the New 
World Translation comes to mind as one example, all versions of the Bible 
are pretty uniform when it comes to issues of misbehavior.

</JS>