| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

This would be another great opportunity
for Brandon or Kanga to explain to us
how the archaic (Webster's lists the
meaning of "offend" above as being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
misleading to a modern reader.

shame shame shame... you *knew* that you
would automatically get his goat by
pushing that button.

"Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a bunch of
"pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.

"Jon Houts" wrote in message

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

This would be another great opportunity
for Brandon or Kanga to explain to us
how the archaic (Webster's lists the
meaning of "offend" above as being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
misleading to a modern reader.

shame shame shame... you *knew* that you
would automatically get his goat by
pushing that button.

"Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a
bunch of "pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.

Guess I missed that one. Must have my reflexes checked.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Brandon wrote:

If it bothers you to have archaic or hard-
to-understand words in a Bible,

What was that you said about misrepresentation again? My problem is with
words that meant one thing at one point in time, and something else today.
If a word isn't used today (archaic) or is "hard to understand," one can
look it up, right? If you wrongly think you know what a word mean (as
LaVonne did), you have no reason to look it up.

The NIV uses the word "abutted" in Eze 40:18. The more modern KJV uses the
word "against."

The NIV uses the word "alcove" in Eze 40:13. The easier to understand KJV
uses the words "little chamber."

The NIV uses "annotations" in 2Chr 13:22. The simpler KJV uses "stories."

The NIV uses "breakers" in Ps 93:4. The up-to-date KJV uses "waves."

The NIV uses "brood" in Isa 57:4. The obviously more accessible KJV uses
"children."

....and you thought those words meant something else?

The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."

I have one neighbor who has what I think of as a "colonnade," and lots of
neighbors with "porches." From the description, does it sound anything
like what you see called a "porch" today?

The overly complex NIV uses "disheartened" in Eze 13:22. The KJV makes this
simpler with "sad."

Do you know what enrollment is? The NIV doesn't. It uses "enrollment" in
2Chr 17:14. I mean, how is a modern reader supposed to understand that they
didn't actually enroll in a class?

Neither of the dictionaries I have here listed "register for a class" (or
similar wording as a definition for "enrollment."

The NIV has "haunt" in Ps 44:19. Since we all know that "haunt" is
something ghosts do, the KJV updated this to "place."

Since "magi" in the NIV at Mt 2:1 could easily conjur up visions of wizards,
the KJV has the more clear "wise men."

Since they were more like astrologers, visions of wizards doesn't seem
like a bad image to conjure up. "Wise men" seems a little vague.

Now please: when you think of a THONG, do you *really* envision something
Jesus would wear? You see, the old NIV was written before the modern
popular "Thong Song."
(http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/c...hong_Song.html ) They
wouldn't understand that TODAY, when we talk about thongs, we are talking
about what in THOSE days (when the NIV was translated) was called a
"G-string." Don't worry about what the dictionary says because face it, when
kids think about thongs, they aren't thinking about shoelaces. So it is
obviously a BAD THING to have John messing with the Lord's thong in Luke
3:16. So the more modern KJV translators, not wanting a raunchy R&B song to
be brought to mind when reading the Bible, change "thong" to "latchet."
Sure, "latchet" has two syllables, and that may leave some people behind,
but we think you'll agree that it's a worthwhile trade-off.

Well, some of us *do* think footwear when we see "thong." But, I think
that whole discussion was before your time in the ng.

but,but...
Jon

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Brandon wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

"Automatically"? I tried on Sept 13, 2002 (when someone posted a
bunch of "pro-gay" KJV prooftexts) and he didn't respond.

Guess I missed that one. Must have my reflexes checked.

I was less inclined to believe that that was an honest misunderstanding.
I thought maybe that was why you didn't answer that one. Then again, I
don't think you were posting much then.

but,but...
Jon

"Jon Houts" wrote in message
...

The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."

I have one neighbor who has what I think of as a "colonnade," and lots of
neighbors with "porches." From the description, does it sound anything
like what you see called a "porch" today?

Actually we call it a "Lanai" in Hawaii.

--
- Rebekah Staggs
http://www.staggs.pair.com/jaenest

Why would ""Frank"" post your opinions under his own name?
That kind of defeats the purpose of forging doesn't it?
Is he your friend or your foe?

Didn't you used to use a name starting with k9, Kane?

Doan, That was Strauss that reversed himself, right?
Since he was pretty much the Guru of the anti-spankers,
I wonder how many of LaVonne's textbooks are incorrect?

LaVonne: Do you have a syllabus online?

Kane: What about the messages that ""Frank"" posted
under his own name that sounded like your issues?
Even paranoia about Christian reconstructionism?

Why would ""Frank"" post your stuff under his name?

Defeats purpose of message header forgery doesn't it?

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
Kane: What about the messages that ""Frank"" posted
under his own name that sounded like your issues?
Even paranoia about Christian reconstructionism?

What about them?


Why would ""Frank"" post your stuff under his name?


I find one post he did that. As I've pointed out he and I have a long
history of harrassment of me and my nailing his ass for it. He
probably still smarts years later for my successfully running him down
and have 3 ISPs in a month close his accounts with them.

Defeats purpose of message header forgery doesn't it?

What makes you think forgery was his goal?

So what's your point, Whore?

Stoneman

So why did ""Frank"" post your issues under his name for weeks?
Wouldn't that undermind his ""forgery""?