"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Honus" wrote in message
news:H4TSd.54284$uc.1254@trnddc04...

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
Copied from page 241 of the New Testament of a 1963 edition of Dake's
Annotated Reference Bible. As far as I know ALL his Bible's are King
James Only.

[ALL TYPOS ARE MINE ALONE! I think I'll copyright them!] :-)
[Where
he underlined for emphasis I'll use upper case.]

===========

A Tribute to the Bible

The Bible is not an amulet, a charm, a fetish, or a book that will
work
wonders by its very presence.

IT IS a book that will work wonders in every life, here and
hereafter,
if acted upon and obeyed in faith and sincerity. IT IS God's
inspired
revelation of the origin and destiny of all things, written in the
most
simple human language possible so that the most unlearned can
understand
and obey its teachings. IT IS self-interpreting and covers every
subject of human knowledge and need now and forever.

That means absolutely nothing, and the same claims could be made by any
other holy book. And written in the most simple human language
possible?
What hyperbole! It was written in an inferior language, plain and
simple.
Having a word for "sphere" or "globe", etc. for example would have made
the
whole is the Earth round or flat debate moot. I won't even go near the
"almah" means young lady vs. virgin debate. And as for understanding
and
obeying its teachings, yeah...right. that's why they're more subsets of
Christianity than you can name.

I have to disagree. The Koran cant work wonders as it teaches its
followers
to kill all infidels. As for language, simple means simple, doesn't mean
it


So does the Old Testament if you read the right parts selectively.
The problem is fundies, /literalists and people that have an agenda
and are using a holy book to justify their ends. A pox on them.

I dont think its the "fundies". I think its people that have such a naive
mind that wont believe the truth when the read it.

The popularly quoted phrase from the Koran that says "kill all the
infidels" is taken out of context. The rest of the paragraph says
"unless they leave us alone". Nothing wring with that.

Read the writings of Karen Armstrong

http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong.htm

and Bernard Lewis

http://www.arab2.com/biography/bernard-lewis.htm


Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."
Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off
their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."
Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are
ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."
Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and
deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."
5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who decla 'God is the Messiah, the son of
Mary.'"
verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your
friends. They are friends with one another."
Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe."
Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people."

So, which ones of these verses are taken out of context?
B

"Brian Oakley" wrote in message
...

snip

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

Sounds like something Jehovah would say.

Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off
their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

Sounds like something Jehovah -did- say.

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are
ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Yep...still hearing Jehovah.

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and
deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

No change. That's most certainly something we'd hear from the Bible.

5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who decla 'God is the Messiah, the son of
Mary.'"

I don't see a problem with that. The Bible makes similar claims. What would
you expect from any book that claims to be the ultimate truth? It's going to
point out that the other guys are in the wrong. And this offends you
somehow?

verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your
friends. They are friends with one another."

Different words, but a very similar tune. No points here either, I'm afraid.

Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe."

Again, no big deal. Be in the world, not of it, and so on.

Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own
people."

Again, there are comparable Bible verses. You're not trying very hard.

So, which ones of these verses are taken out of context?

All of the ones that don't have their context quoted with them.

In article ,
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Honus" wrote in message
news:H4TSd.54284$uc.1254@trnddc04...

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
Copied from page 241 of the New Testament of a 1963 edition of Dake's
Annotated Reference Bible. As far as I know ALL his Bible's are King
James Only.

[ALL TYPOS ARE MINE ALONE! I think I'll copyright them!] :-)
[Where
he underlined for emphasis I'll use upper case.]

===========

A Tribute to the Bible

The Bible is not an amulet, a charm, a fetish, or a book that will
work
wonders by its very presence.

IT IS a book that will work wonders in every life, here and
hereafter,
if acted upon and obeyed in faith and sincerity. IT IS God's
inspired
revelation of the origin and destiny of all things, written in the
most
simple human language possible so that the most unlearned can
understand
and obey its teachings. IT IS self-interpreting and covers every
subject of human knowledge and need now and forever.

That means absolutely nothing, and the same claims could be made by any
other holy book. And written in the most simple human language
possible?
What hyperbole! It was written in an inferior language, plain and
simple.
Having a word for "sphere" or "globe", etc. for example would have made
the
whole is the Earth round or flat debate moot. I won't even go near the
"almah" means young lady vs. virgin debate. And as for understanding
and
obeying its teachings, yeah...right. that's why they're more subsets of
Christianity than you can name.

I have to disagree. The Koran cant work wonders as it teaches its
followers
to kill all infidels. As for language, simple means simple, doesn't mean
it


So does the Old Testament if you read the right parts selectively.
The problem is fundies, /literalists and people that have an agenda
and are using a holy book to justify their ends. A pox on them.

I dont think its the "fundies". I think its people that have such a naive
mind that wont believe the truth when the read it.

The popularly quoted phrase from the Koran that says "kill all the
infidels" is taken out of context. The rest of the paragraph says
"unless they leave us alone". Nothing wring with that.

Read the writings of Karen Armstrong

http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong.htm

and Bernard Lewis

http://www.arab2.com/biography/bernard-lewis.htm


Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."
Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off
their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."
Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are
ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."
Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and
deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."
5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who decla 'God is the Messiah, the son of
Mary.'"
verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your
friends. They are friends with one another."
Verse 4:101 - "The unbelievers are your inveterate foe."
Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people."

So, which ones of these verses are taken out of context?
B





From _Islam_ by Karen Armstrong p.22; To justify antisemitism some
Islamists "quote the passages of the Quran that refer to Muhammad's
struggle with three rebellious Jewish tribes" Armstrong doesn't name
the passages which tells me there are several.


Ibid. P 30 The Quran does not sanctify warefare. it develops a concept
of just war and self defense but condems killing and agression.

2.194 What is done in the restricted month may be retaliated in the
same month, and murder shall be punishable by execution. Whoever
attacks you, then you shall attack him the same as he attacked you;
and be aware of God, and know that God is with the righteous.

2:252 Such messengers, We have preferred some over others; some of
them talked to God, and He raised some of them in rank, and We gave
Jesus son of Mary the proofs and We supported him with the holy
spirit. And had God wished, the people after them would not have
fought after the proofs had come to them, but they disputed, some of
them believed and some of them disbelieved. Had God wished they would
not have fought, but God does whatever He wishes.

Ibid. P.22 The Quran is emphatic that force or coercion not be user to
make converts.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

As for language, simple means simple, doesn't mean it
translates exactly the way you want it to in whatever language you choose.

As for "subsets" of
Christianity, more properly called denominations, that has nothing to do
with disobeying the Bible at all. It has to do with interpretation.
Different verses can be understood in different ways. Sometimes our lack of
ability to clearly translate an ancient language into our own lends itself
to such differences of interpretation.

The above two excerpts were written by the same person, in the same
post, separated by only two sentences. Good thing it has a lot to do
with shortwave, otherwise I'd think it was just a lot of crazy talk.

"Brian Running" wrote in message
...
As for language, simple means simple, doesn't mean it
translates exactly the way you want it to in whatever language you
choose.

As for "subsets" of
Christianity, more properly called denominations, that has nothing to do
with disobeying the Bible at all. It has to do with interpretation.
Different verses can be understood in different ways. Sometimes our lack
of
ability to clearly translate an ancient language into our own lends
itself
to such differences of interpretation.

The above two excerpts were written by the same person, in the same
post, separated by only two sentences. Good thing it has a lot to do
with shortwave, otherwise I'd think it was just a lot of crazy talk.

I'm afraid you took these two statements out of their context. If you had
bothered to read the post and repost it in its entirety then it would make
sense. Anyone can pull something out of context.
B

Brian Oakley wrote:
ve made

the

whole is the Earth round or flat debate moot. I won't even go near the
"almah" means young lady vs. virgin debate. And as for understanding and
obeying its teachings, yeah...right. that's why they're more subsets of
Christianity than you can name.


I have to disagree. The Koran cant work wonders as it teaches its followers
to kill all infidels. As for language, simple means simple, doesn't mean it
translates exactly the way you want it to in whatever language you choose.
As for the "almah" "debate", the writers of the Septuagint clearly
understood the meaning of the Hebrew and translated it with the Greek word
for "virgin". That argument is pretty much closed.

Hardly. The word is used in both contexts in the Hebrew bible. Hebrew
had a couple of terms for young women, "na'arah" and "almah," not to
mention "bethulah" which is also ambiguous as to virginity and they
may or may not have had different meanings. It's possible
that the Greek of the period did not have a word to precisely connote
whatever it was that the the compilers of the Septuagint had in mind,
so they chose "ha'almah." The reference in Isaiah seems to be clearly
describing an event which is to happen in the immediate future, in
an attempt to dissuade king Ahaz from handing over Judah to the
Assyrians to protect it from alliance of the Syrians and Northern
kingdom. This
is supported by the use of the definite article - it is "the almah"
in Hebrew, not "an almah" as KJV incorrectly has it.

Larry Ozarow wrote:
d.


Hardly. The word is used in both contexts in the Hebrew bible. Hebrew
had a couple of terms for young women, "na'arah" and "almah," not to
mention "bethulah" which is also ambiguous as to virginity and they
may or may not have had different meanings. It's possible
that the Greek of the period did not have a word to precisely connote
whatever it was that the the compilers of the Septuagint had in mind,
so they chose "ha'almah."
^^^^^^^^^^
Oops. I meant they chose "parthenos" for "ha'almah"



The reference in Isaiah seems to be clearly
describing an event which is to happen in the immediate future, in
an attempt to dissuade king Ahaz from handing over Judah to the
Assyrians to protect it from alliance of the Syrians and Northern
kingdom. This
is supported by the use of the definite article - it is "the almah"
in Hebrew, not "an almah" as KJV incorrectly has it.

Brian Oakley wrote:


"Honus" wrote in message
news:H4TSd.54284$uc.1254@trnddc04...

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
Copied from page 241 of the New Testament of a 1963 edition of Dake's
Annotated Reference Bible. As far as I know ALL his Bible's are King
James Only.

[ALL TYPOS ARE MINE ALONE! I think I'll copyright them!] :-) [Where
he underlined for emphasis I'll use upper case.]

===========

A Tribute to the Bible

The Bible is not an amulet, a charm, a fetish, or a book that will work
wonders by its very presence.

IT IS a book that will work wonders in every life, here and hereafter,
if acted upon and obeyed in faith and sincerity. IT IS God's inspired
revelation of the origin and destiny of all things, written in the most
simple human language possible so that the most unlearned can
understand
and obey its teachings. IT IS self-interpreting and covers every
subject of human knowledge and need now and forever.

That means absolutely nothing, and the same claims could be made by any
other holy book. And written in the most simple human language possible?
What hyperbole! It was written in an inferior language, plain and simple.
Having a word for "sphere" or "globe", etc. for example would have made
the
whole is the Earth round or flat debate moot. I won't even go near the
"almah" means young lady vs. virgin debate. And as for understanding and
obeying its teachings, yeah...right. that's why they're more subsets of
Christianity than you can name.

I have to disagree. The Koran cant work wonders as it teaches its
followers to kill all infidels. As for language, simple means simple,
doesn't mean it translates exactly the way you want it to in whatever
language you choose. As for the "almah" "debate", the writers of the
Septuagint clearly understood the meaning of the Hebrew and translated it
with the Greek word for "virgin". That argument is pretty much closed. As
for "subsets" of Christianity, more properly called denominations, that
has nothing to do with disobeying the Bible at all. It has to do with
interpretation. Different verses can be understood in different ways.
Sometimes our lack of ability to clearly translate an ancient language
into our own lends itself
to such differences of interpretation. The prayer of Jabez comes to mind.
For you to dismiss the Bible as a mere book just indicates that you don't
realize how it has changed peoples lives. If everyone lived by the
teachings of Jesus, there would be no hate, no selfishness, no lust, no
murder, no theft. You cant say that about any other "holy" book.
B

The bible similarly can be interpreted to sanction genocide. That is it
preferable to let people rape your daughters than bugger strangers. That
women should not be in positions of leadership. The Koran (have you read
it?) teaches that people "of the book", which includes Christians and Jews
should be respected and allowed to kill. There are contradictory messages
within any book of religious or holy text. Whenever religion becomes allied
with power, look out. c.f., "axis of evil", "evil empire" and "great
satan" type comments from persons in leadership positions.

I would call myself a bible guy. If you like the bible, so do I. If
you don't like the bible, I still do. If I were to reccommend a single
part of the book to you, to anyone, I would strongly suggest reading
Ecclesiastes. Darren http://www.geocities.con/apocalyptic121/index.html

Darren,

From your url I'd have guessed Song of Solomon! :-) . . . or a couple
dozen of his concubines! He'd still have about 976 wives and concubines
left.

D. Martin wrote:

I would call myself a bible guy. If you like the bible, so do I. If
you don't like the bible, I still do. If I were to reccommend a single
part of the book to you, to anyone, I would strongly suggest reading
Ecclesiastes.