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

On May 2, 7:00=A0pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dan MacKay" <cal1f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:69257016-a5a0-4b7e-ac27-851b4d75d42d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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,
n=
or
> > > 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
entire=
ly
> > 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
tha=
t
> 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
kno=
w
> 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
peopl=
e
> 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>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

rock on Mr Jeff and also i know of no verse in the Bible that says
everybody going ****d is good...but we are dealin with heathen of the
worst kind here....so you figure.....jz