Re: Engineering Environment
From: Clarence (No_at_No.Com)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: Keith Williams: "Re: I'm a republican and I'm voting for Kerry"
- Previous message: Colin MacDougall: "Re: UK Electronics publication"
- In reply to: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:48:14 GMT
"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:bONzlEJoMeSBFwNR@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence <No@No.Com> wrote (in
> <ezk2d.16273$QJ3.13616@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>) about 'Engineering
> Environment', on Thu, 16 Sep 2004:
>
> >There was no reference to the level of the local or personal economy,
> >only the marriage status of the daughter.
>
> Oh, come on!
I just did!
> The original texts have been handed down orally, shredded,
> composted, altered by knaves to make a trap for fools, translated badly
> into several languages in series. You practically have to take each
> sentence as if it were in isolation, and even then you find translation
> errors. It wasn't a 'camel' that had an abortive encounter with a needle
> but a 'rope'.
SO? I am aware that little is translated into a clear and readable form.
> >
> >I see you dodged the facts again. If you disapprove you explain it is
> >too complex for anyone but a Priest or minister to understand.
>
> I have NEVER held, let alone expressed, that opinion. I form my own
> views on what any text means, including, but not exclusively, those in
> the Bible.
WOW, From Gods mouth to your ear?
> > So it
> >doesn't mean what it says? (I do agree.)
>
> Some things don't mean what they say in *English* because the text has
> been corrupted over several thousand years. Other are very possibly
> ambiguous in the original language. Some may even be puns. Remember how
> telling Jewish humor can be? Well, that wasn't invented in Yiddish;
> it's been around for about 5000 years, in Hebrew and an assortment of
> other languages. As a dilettante translator, I can tell you that it can
> be impossible to render a joke into another language, and puns are
> usually impossible to translate; in fact it's a remarkable event if
> someone finds a translatable one! Here is one that happened to me:
>
> A young friend looked out on the November evening and commented 'Il fait
> du grenouille.' This was a brave attempt at 'Il fait du brouillard' -
> 'It is foggy'. What he actually said is (roughly) 'It is froggy.'
> >
> >Actually slavery was legal when the bible was adopted. They didn't
> >object to being enslaved.
>
> When WHO 'adopted' the Bible? (And I don't mean the World Health
> Organization, or any old Time Lord.)
The Catholic Church of Rome was the reference there. I am aware that many
fragments existed before that, and the apocrypha is the portions omitted.
Along with the other data and records available tot those who complied the text
into the form it appears in the approximately fourteen versions I have had
reason to reference.
> > But it is hardly humane to sell your children!
>
> It may be, if the alternative is that both you and they starve. Consider
> the story of King Cophetua. It's not just a soppy story; that sort of
> thing happened in former times. It can still happen today.
Or leave the area to find food or land to grow food on. There are always
choices,.
> > BTW: A local Priest said that the Bible is the "Perfect Unerring word
> >of God"
>
> There are some sects that claim that. Even among the majority of
> Christian and Jews, they are considered to be mistaken.
So Catholics are "Mistaken?" Okay, if you say so.
> >you seem to disagree by suggesting that it contains errors which
> >are show most
> >clearly by quoting it?
>
> I'm quite prepared to quote the good bits as well as the rubbish and the
> bits that contain textual errors, especially if I can find evidence to
> support a substantive correction of the error. Remember, please, that I
> *defended* the advice to 'sell your ugly daughter' as being fully
> justified in some circumstances.
>
> > Is this wise?
>
> I hope so. There is no proof.
Then it can not be said to be wise!
> > Do you know more than the Priest?
>
> Probably. Depends on which one you have in mind.
He would condemn you to hell as he did me.
> > Does God speak to you personally?
>
> Which god? Does a god need to use speech? How do I know if a god is
> communicating with me through the pain in my neck that tells me I've
> been at the computer too long?
Any of the 1580 the Human race has created to explain or control everything we
can question or imagine.
"Speak" is a metaphor for communicate. But you really knew that didn't you?
> --
> Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
> The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
> The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
> http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
So given that we largely agree that the Bible is not relevant to any
intelligent conversation, and likely doesn't mean what it says due to the above
listed faults (and more) in translation. (I have attempted to translate it too,
came to the conclusion that it can't be done!)
Why continue this thread?
Bye
- Next message: Keith Williams: "Re: I'm a republican and I'm voting for Kerry"
- Previous message: Colin MacDougall: "Re: UK Electronics publication"
- In reply to: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Next in thread: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Engineering Environment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
