John Knight wrote:
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:ah53hg$aks$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> > In article <3d35ea3f.214975 at news.freeserve.net>
>angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) writes:
> > <
> > <On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:26:19 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org>
> > <wrote:
> > <
> > {...}
> > <
> > <Ah, I see. That makes perfect sense if you believe the Bible to be
> > <the Word Of God.
> > <
> > <Perfect anti-science - ignore any evidence that contradicts a hypothesis.
> > <Ignore all evidence, really.
> > <
> > <Which translation of the Bible do you take as the Word Of God, that's
> > <the question.
> > <
> >
> > I'm always gobsmacked by the (rather sizeable) subset of Christians
> > who believe that the King James is the one, true, and only correct
> > translation into English. Apparently they feel that God wasn't
> > terribly interested in pre-Elizabethan anglophones.
> >
> >
> >
> > -- cary
>> The fact is that the more translations of the Holy Bible there are, the
> better an understanding of it you can gain.
>> Looking at it from the perspectives of two or three or ten different
> translators is an excellent way to clarify an important point that might
> otherwise be obscured if you relied *only* on the KJV.
>> Also, there are some very whacked out translators who've gotten caught
> trying to pull stunts like pretending that they believe that jews were
> Isrealites, or that Israelites were jews.
>> Now, cary, what kind of translators do you think would want to pull a stunt
> like that?
>> John Knight
Jesus was a Jew, so it always puzzles me why Xtian racists like you hate
Jews.
J
