Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I have re-translated "The Bible".

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

If you write like you are stoned, does that make you an adulterer?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?


No!

King's (Queen's) English is used to describe 'correct' English, as opposed
to slang or poor grammar etc..

The English in the King James Bible is correctly described as Early Modern
(or Renaissance) English.

73
Jeff

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer
is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him
drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is
anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk
and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?
B

Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an
adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take
the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters
to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer
is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him
drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the bad,
and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong they do. If
God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you think that means
He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont understand much about God
or the Bible by showing that kind of thinking. Surely youre not that naive.
I think youre just biased, which is ok, but at least admit it.
B

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.

Maybe I can connect my dipoles on sky hooks?

W0BF

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

You can't translate something you don't read or understand. The media often
does something like that, it is called "commentary" or roughly translated:
"subterfuge", "lying" or "manipulation" depending on the intent.

BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation
isn't required.