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

On May 2, 5:00=A0pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dan MacKay" <cal1f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > 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.
>


"Noted and dismissed" doubtless because it conflicts with what you
choose to believe, much as the "Translators" dismissed parts of the
Original Bible (The Apochrypha) because these parts conflicted with
their beliefs.

There is no reason to believe that some monk in his cell "translating"
a passage didn't tweak the verse because he didn't like what it said.