Ahem.
Christmas/Kwanzaa/Festivus displays, and Toddsters claim of royal lineage are all WAAAY off the original topic.
Would anyone mind terribly if I attempted to drag this thread back to the original topic?

Here's what Nancy Pelosi wrote back on Nov 7, 2006:
[QUOTE]

In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.

In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.

In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.

In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.

In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.


In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67.

And if all goes as expected, in less than 100 hours my sixth grandchild will be born.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where government is for and by the people. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that rewards and values hard work. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where you are not labeled a terrorist coddler when you honor the Constitution.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where if the U.S. Central Command judges the situation in Iraq to be near chaos, with "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically", if the top intelligence agencies tell you that the war in Iraq is inspiring the very terrorism it was purported to prevent, and if four highly respected military newspapers say of the Secretary of Defense that "his strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised...[he] must go" that you fire your Secretary of Defense and change the course.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America whose government honors its duty for accountability and oversight.

I want my grandchild to be born into an America that inspires innovation, that leads with dignity and diplomacy, that rejects fear mongering, and whose leaders start each day remembering that the Constitution begins with the simple but revolutionary phrase "We the people," which announced to the world that here, the people rule.

If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.

We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.

We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[QUOTE] (source: Huffpost)
The people of America seem to agree with this. I know I do.
Hence the recent change brought about by the Nov. 8 elections.
Thanks for (finally) waking up, fellow Americans.
Now lets hold the newly elected officials to their promises.
We have seen for 10 years what happens when we let them do as they please!

More recent info here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-01-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I am often dismayed at the attitude some have toward Christmas. For example, Jewish and non-Christian folks saying they can't/won't enjoy Christmas because it's a "Christian holiday". There are actually two Christmases... 1. The Christian holiday. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, birth of the savior, religious songs, and so on. 2. The secular holiday. Santa Claus, Xmas trees, reindeer, mistletoe, decorations, presents, and so on. Neither really has anything to do with the other, except that some folks have tried to cram them together. If you are Jewish or non-religious, I'd encourage those folks to enjoy the latter definition, the nice mid-winter party, and don't worry about the religious side of which you need not feel obligated to participate.

But if your religious and Jewish the whole concept of Christmas brings up 'other gods before me', graven images, idols and the like.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits. In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq. In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion. In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits. In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each. In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67. And if all goes as expected, in less than 100 hours my sixth grandchild will be born. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where government is for and by the people. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that rewards and values hard work. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where you are not labeled a terrorist coddler when you honor the Constitution.

Let's see here, according to her filings, Ms. Pelosi had unearned income (not counting her congressional salary and reimbursements) of between of $2.575 million and $16.083 million. Not including the at least $2.896 million she got from purchasing and selling stocks and other property. Let's just use the mid-range of the high and low and that's $9.329, plus her trades let's call it a nice, round, $12 1/4 million dollars.

That comes to her making something around $140,000 in that same first 100 hours.

I think her grandkids will be OK.

John Stricker

PS: what does this have to do with what the Democrats are planning? Nothing. Just like the part I quoted from her speech where she's blasting the rich has nothing to do with it either.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: But if your religious and Jewish the whole concept of Christmas brings up 'other gods before me', graven images, idols and the like.

How does this apply to the *secular* Christmas? A Christmas tree is an idol? Maybe it meant something to Pagans, 2000 years ago, but now it's just a nice winter celebration. Not to mention the fact that a real tree smells really good.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: John Stricker PS: what does this have to do with what the Democrats are planning? Nothing. Just like the part I quoted from her speech where she's blasting the rich has nothing to do with it either.

I guess you only read the part you wanted to read.
Did you miss the part about healthcare, student loans, PAY AS YOU GO government, getting lobbiests out of government.......?
All terrible, anti American, or at least anti (current) republican ideas no doubt.

------------------
"What I'm tryin' to say Is, don't they pray
To the same God That we do?
Tell me How does God choose?
Whose prayers does he refuse?"
-Tom Waits

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-02-2007).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Ahem. Christmas/Kwanzaa/Festivus displays, and Toddsters claim of royal lineage are all WAAAY off the original topic. Would anyone mind terribly if I attempted to drag this thread back to the original topic? Here's what Nancy Pelosi wrote back on Nov 7, 2006: [QUOTE] In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits. In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq. In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion. In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits. In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each. In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67. And if all goes as expected, in less than 100 hours my sixth grandchild will be born. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where government is for and by the people. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that rewards and values hard work. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where you are not labeled a terrorist coddler when you honor the Constitution. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where if the U.S. Central Command judges the situation in Iraq to be near chaos, with "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically", if the top intelligence agencies tell you that the war in Iraq is inspiring the very terrorism it was purported to prevent, and if four highly respected military newspapers say of the Secretary of Defense that "his strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised...[he] must go" that you fire your Secretary of Defense and change the course. I want my grandchild to be born into an America whose government honors its duty for accountability and oversight. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that inspires innovation, that leads with dignity and diplomacy, that rejects fear mongering, and whose leaders start each day remembering that the Constitution begins with the simple but revolutionary phrase "We the people," which announced to the world that here, the people rule. If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage. We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases. We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half. We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil. We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security. I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. [QUOTE] (source: Huffpost) The people of America seem to agree with this. I know I do. Hence the recent change brought about by the Nov. 8 elections. Thanks for (finally) waking up, fellow Americans. Now lets hold the newly elected officials to their promises. We have seen for 10 years what happens when we let them do as they please! More recent info here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

Is this the sam Nancy Pelosi that hires illegal immigrant workers for her multi-million dollar vineyards and claims to be opposed to exploitation of immigrants?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who owns a multi-million dollar golf club in San Martin California that was built with the permission of the County of Santa Clara provided the club were open to the public...and now the public can't use it even if they could afford the $250,000 membership fee as it is invitation only?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who when building this golf club destroyed two wildlife habitats and killed a rare variety of frog indiginous ONLY to the region and yet lambasted Richard Pombo over his Wildlife reforms acts?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who claims to be a friend of the Unions and takes their special interest money but busted a union organization meeting at her multi-million dollar Napa Valley Restaurant and fired all participants?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who has an estimated $50 million net worth but claims to be a friend of the "working class"?

Let's do this Uranus...stop quoting Nancy Pelosi on ANYTHING related to ethics and leadership except to demonstrate how people like her and Ken Lay and other white collar criminals deserve to be dealt with.

BTW, we (the people) are still suing her over the Golf Club issue and she will be held accountable in the end.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: They are not quotes. The "Bible for Dummies" is not the Bible. The book was written in Aromaic originally, translated into Latin, then into olde English. The literal translation is the only one with any credibility as to the original meaning. If we start changing it to suit modern dialect then you might as well quote the Rap version: Exodus 21:17 "Yo yo, if sprout be talkin the shiznit youz be cappin' his ass." Word of da Lord, peace out.

The Bible was originally written in smell?

Most of the quotes I posted were "New International Version" translations - directly from The Bible. The Bible has been translated many times over the centuries, and if you think the King James Version is the only accurate version, you're being foolish. Unless you're going to quote me a direct translation from the original Aramaic (that's the language, not the aroma), then stop trying to split hairs.

Bible scholars have argued over the translations for centuries. You are not a Bible scholar and your word is not enough to declare an entire publication invalid.

No, I didn't miss it. I just wanted to point out that over half of her comments were irrelevant and there only to continue and deepen an "us vs. them", "rich vs. poor" mentality. That's no way to try and motivate people or try to be more uplifting to them, is it?

But if you want to discuss the rest, then by all means, let's do that.

quote We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Many of the recommendations are already being implemented and to be frank, some of them are just stupid and designed by beuracrats and should NOT be implemented, but I have no problems with the new leadership looking at it all again and picking the best that still needs to be done. The implication, though, is that NONE of it has been done and that's simply not true.

quote We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.

Not a big issue for me. Many states already have a higher minimum wage than is federally mandated and those that don't, like KS, have found that even McDonalds has to pay more than minimum wage to get people to work. It's a nice talking point but the net effect will be a big goose egg.

quote We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

I'm very intimate with the medicare prescription drug plan. It's confusing because people demanded a choice. With the many, many choices, there IS a lot of confusion. Overall, though, it's not a bad plan in how it works, at leas with the two companies I've dealt with. To me, the "fixing" should be no more than greater public education and information on making the best choice for THEM, because every plan is different depending on what drugs you take.

Ah, yes. Tell me, who and how pays for this? I don't think very many people have a clue as to how much a national health care program is going to cost. Would you like a hint? Look at Medicare. We already have Medicaide for those that can't afford it for the most part (although I grant you too many slip through the cracks). Many states (even KS) have care cards for children that have very lenient income guidelines. And of course we have to bring up the old "stem cell research" again. Yep. That's the answer to ALL of our problems. Start listing all the massive breakthroughs we have, or that we're close to having, by using (embryonic, since that the ONLY thing that federally funding is withheld for) stem cell research and convince me how great it is.

And before you start saying "well, if it was you......", it IS me and my family. My father has fairly advanced Parkinsons and I have a family history of it. I also have nerve damage in my back. It's not worth it to me to use embryonic stem cells.

quote We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.

More money. I thought you were one of those screaming about the Bush budget? You see any improvement in it by paying more student loan interest? Besides that, how does that making GOING to college more affordable? You STILL have to pay the tuition, fees, books, food, housing, clothing, etc. The bill still has to be paid. I say if you want to make an impact, subsidize with direct tuition payments and never have to borrow the money in the first place.

quote We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

Who do you (and she) really thinks PAYS the bill for the oil companies? Let me give you a hint, it's the person looking in the mirror at you every morning. So how, Nancy, are we going to achieve this "energy independence"? By banning drilling on offshore sites? Banning drilling in ANWAR? Oh, no, we're going to do it by raising prices of gasoline MORE, taking choices away from what we're allowed to drive, and any number of other limitations. That's the Democratic party motto. We know best and we'll restrict all you peons by making more rules.

quote We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

Uh-huh. You've had 75 years to make the SS system fiscally and actuarially sound.............and it isn't. But that's all because of privatization, which has never been allowed to even be TRIED. Right. And the check is in the mail

quote I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Well, being a grandmother certainly qualifies you to be able to do all these things, now doesn't it?

Look, I don't think that all Dems are bad, evil, and/or corrupt. I think most of them want the best for the country (save a few that are self serving to the point of being ludicrous). But especially things like the "energy independence" when they throw roadblocks up for any kind of new drilling, and their answer to it is reduce consumption. Right. How do you honestly think that's going to happen? We had gas prices WELL over $3/gallon and consumption went down only a minor amount. What do you think it will take? $4? $5? I'm guessing $5 before there is a meaningful reduction. Now what will THAT do to our economy? And as OUR economy goes, so goes the European economy, for the most part. Yep, this plan will make us more competitive.

I also didn't see anything mentioning "pay as you go" government. Did I miss that? Did you notice she said NOTHING in her speech about rolling back the tax cuts?

Keep on wearing those blinders, bud.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I guess you only read the part you wanted to read. Did you miss the part about healthcare, student loans, PAY AS YOU GO government, getting lobbiests out of government.......? All terrible, anti American, or at least anti (current) republican ideas no doubt.

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 01-02-2007).]

I see a hundred hours of talking points but deffinetly not a plan with supstancial actions. A plan isn't just saying what you'll do but how you'll do it. Yeah she says "we'll start by......". But what about after that?

quote We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

How exactly is this going to give us independence? (not that I think its a bad idea)

quote We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

How is letting the goverment take care of you more dignified then taking care of your self?

Cutting subsidies for oil companies is fine by me. With the profits they've been making lately, there's certainly no need for any subsidizing.

So, Pelosi is going to achieve energy independance. How? She didn't mention that part. There's a few possibilities.
-Increase the amount of energy we generate here. (i.e. produce more domestic oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) But Dems have typically been against expanding oil drilling, so I have no idea how they'll do this one.

-Create new forms of enegy generated here. (i.e. Hydrogen fuel cell tech, or other stuff in development. That's gonna need funding to develope and isn't likely to have any meaningful impact for many years, possibly decades. Still, good idea to promote research)

-Decrease the amount of energy we use. Supply and Demand suggests they would do that by raising prices, possibly by adding extra taxes to the energy.

Sure would like to know "how" she plans on doing it.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i don't expect the democratic congress to roll over and be conciliatory in the face of such a blunt ideology, but i'm pretty certain that they actually understand something called "representation."

heh...I guess so. Representing themselves.
The repupulsivcan body is not even cold or buried yet. The dumbocrats, who shifted ideals repulsivcanly, won a slight, very slight majority. Somewhat partly due to bi-partisanship promises. The first 100 days? heh...
Have they cut off their left nut before the 08 elections?
I said 100 days. Actually it is 100 hours. Which is estimated to take three weeks. heh...
'Tis a shame that the repulsivcans might do the same. We need people that understand that we all count.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-04-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The Bible was originally written in smell? Most of the quotes I posted were "New International Version" translations - directly from The Bible. The Bible has been translated many times over the centuries, and if you think the King James Version is the only accurate version, you're being foolish. Unless you're going to quote me a direct translation from the original Aramaic (that's the language, not the aroma), then stop trying to split hairs. Bible scholars have argued over the translations for centuries. You are not a Bible scholar and your word is not enough to declare an entire publication invalid.

At the risk of being discredited by the theological community, I declare Exodus 21:17 "Yo yo, if sprout be talkin the shiznit youz be cappin' his ass." to be invalid.

Bring the heat.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: At the risk of being discredited by the theological community, I declare Exodus 21:17 "Yo yo, if sprout be talkin the shiznit youz be cappin' his ass." to be invalid. Bring the heat.

Here's one of the verses I originally quoted:

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Exodus 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death."

You then asked me not to put quotes around statements that are NOT quotes. Well, they are quotes, even if you don't recognize the translation. Here are a few others.

-Amplified Bible: "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
-Darby Translation: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall certainly be put to death."
-New International Version: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
-New American Standard Bible: "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death"
-New Life Version: "Whoever curses his father or his mother will be put to death."
-King James Version: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
-New King James Version: “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."
-American Standard Version: "And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
-Young's Literal Translation: "And he who is reviling his father or his mother is certainly put to death."
-Holman Christian Standard Bible: ""Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death."

There are about 40 other translations in various languages I can post, but I guess I should ask first, which particular Bible do YOU read?

So before you tell me I'm not accurately quoting something, do your homework. You can start here: http://www.biblegateway.com/

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: -Amplified Bible: "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." -Darby Translation: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall certainly be put to death." -New International Version: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." -New American Standard Bible: "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death" -New Life Version: "Whoever curses his father or his mother will be put to death." -King James Version: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." -New King James Version: “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." -American Standard Version: "And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death." -Young's Literal Translation: "And he who is reviling his father or his mother is certainly put to death." -Holman Christian Standard Bible: ""Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death."

And I note that not one of these sources you reference matches your quote. Nor does it reconcile with your post:

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If you want to use the Old Testament of the Bible for your reference for laws....

If you choose to quote the Young's Literal Translation Bible, or any other, then say so. Don't call it "the Old Testament of the Bible"...When you do, most members of the Christian faith (and there are a lot of 'em) correctly assume you mean the King James Translation which is a literal word for word translation of the Constantine translation of the original text.

The example I gave above is a quote too...from the "Rappers Bible". I stated so. Clarity maintained. Value it accordingly. I don't disagree with any of the content of your original post but If you are unclear about your sources how can anyone gleen credibility from your arguement?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: most members of the Christian faith (and there are a lot of 'em) correctly assume you mean the King James Translation which is a literal word for word translation of the Constantine translation of the original text.

you mean most protestants, don't you? the KJV is very much a protestant product. my understanding is that the vulgate (of which the douay-rheims is the modern "literal" translation) significantly predates the KJV's constantinopolitan source.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: If you choose to quote the Young's Literal Translation Bible, or any other, then say so. Don't call it "the Old Testament of the Bible"...When you do, most members of the Christian faith (and there are a lot of 'em) correctly assume you mean the King James Translation which is a literal word for word translation of the Constantine translation of the original text. The example I gave above is a quote too...from the "Rappers Bible". I stated so. Clarity maintained. Value it accordingly. I don't disagree with any of the content of your original post but If you are unclear about your sources how can anyone gleen credibility from your arguement?

Is there or is there not an Old Testament of the Bible available in both King James Version as well as the New International Version?
The Old Testament exists in both translations. To say "the Old Testament of the Bible" means "King James Version" is inaccurate. You are spreading false information. Please stop.

But if any Christians reading this think "Old Testament" automatically means "King James Version" please post and let us know. I would be interested to know how many people share Todd's views on the subject.

True, the words are not exact - but each translations says in effect the same thing and each is a verbatim quote from the version listed. As for being "clear" on your sources, I notice you didn't provide a source for your Rapper's Bible. Please do so. I take it I can find this translation in most Christian Book Stores? The versions I listed are all readily available.

For you to admit you're wrong and overreacted by saying it wasn't an accurate quote when it was would truly be a miracle, and I believe the bushes in my yard will burn before you could ever bring yourself to admit making a simple mistake.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-05-2007).]

Back to the subject. Pelosi is in charge, as are the Democrats. The excuses stop NOW. Let's see what they will do. Let's hope they don't mess up a pretty decent economy with unnecessary tweaking.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Back to the subject. Pelosi is in charge, as are the Democrats. The excuses stop NOW. Let's see what they will do. Let's hope they don't mess up a pretty decent economy with unnecessary tweaking.

I have some concern over the PAYGO legislation. In theory it sounds good - no tax cut or increased benefit unless there is a corresponding reduction in spending or tax increase to pay for it. The problem is, a small business or large corporation doesn't operate that way, let alone something as big as a national government. Bush's tax cuts during his first term did result in an increase in tax revenues due to more people working and more money being available to spend - ergo stronger economy.

PAYGO will prevent that from happening, and could make it impossible to maintain tax cuts that are already there. If that happens, the benefit of that money being circulated in the economy goes away because it will be paid to the government in the form of higher taxes. Slower economy, less spending, therefore less workforce needed, so less income. Net revenues may drop by increasing taxes.

I think one of the biggest fallacies of the Democratic party, and I've seen this for generations, is the idea that finances are a zero-sum game. If someone makes a dollar, that means someone else had to lose a dollar.

That's not a good recipe for economic growth. I hope they realize that.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: For you to admit you're wrong and overreacted by saying it wasn't an accurate quote when it was would truly be a miracle, and I believe the bushes in my yard will burn before you could ever bring yourself to admit making a simple mistake.

I've never had a problem admitting an error. Perhaps you have already forgotten the post just 13 above this one!? But I am not mistaken on this matter. You might consider taking your own advice.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: They are not quotes. The "Bible for Dummies" is not the Bible. The book was written in Aromaic originally, translated into Latin, then into olde English. The literal translation is the only one with any credibility as to the original meaning. If we start changing it to suit modern dialect then you might as well quote the Rap version: Exodus 21:17 "Yo yo, if sprout be talkin the shiznit youz be cappin' his ass." Word of da Lord, peace out.

Aromaic no it is Aramaic but the bible was hebrew to greek to latin to english
with no books written in Aramaic first, some old "T" book were found in the dead sea cache
written in Aramaic but those are translations NOT originals
Aramaic is a spoken common laguage, hebrew the holy written laguage
all the new "t" books are originaly in greek except some think mark may have been written in hebrew first but no copy survived
so NO translation from the Aramaic laguage counts in the chain

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I've never had a problem admitting an error. Perhaps you have already forgotten the post just 13 above this one!? But I am not mistaken on this matter. You might consider taking your own advice.

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Todd.

Yikes. You're way out of your element here. Your understanding of biblical history is pretty weak.

Republicans didn't get the opportunity to screw congress throughly until November 2002, btw. Though I appreciate your conviction, however misguided it is.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I've never had a problem admitting an error. Perhaps you have already forgotten the post just 13 above this one!? But I am not mistaken on this matter. You might consider taking your own advice.

[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: They are not quotes. The "Bible for Dummies" is not the Bible. The book was written in Aromaic originally, translated into Latin, then into olde English. The literal translation is the only one with any credibility as to the original meaning. If we start changing it to suit modern dialect then you might as well quote the Rap version: Exodus 21:17 "Yo yo, if sprout be talkin the shiznit youz be cappin' his ass." Word of da Lord, peace out.

Oy vay... what a goyim. You Christians and your newfangled bibles... King James Bible isn't much newer than Jefferson's, actually about the same age in America.

Old testament... aka, The Torah but in this case the Hebrew with vowels as contained in the Westminster Leningrad Codex If you want it as in the Torah, just ignore all the dots and dashes... those are the vowels. They are also why anyone claiming a literal translation of the bible that isn't following the oral reading of the Torah at a synagogue is full of crap, since the Torah contains NO VOWELS. Take the a, e, i, o and u, out of what I've written here and tell me what it says. Wahahahahahaa.

17 וּמְקַלֵּ֥ל אָבִ֛יו וְאִמֹּ֖ו מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃

English translation? As given in the JPS,"He who insults(or "reviles") his father or his mother shall be put to death."

Point, it doesn't really matter which version he quoted, they pretty much all say the same thing on this point, your cap in the azz comment aside since that would be a specific act.

The idea that the KJV is a literal translation is bs fed to you by the church. And it's not the first english version, New Testament in English... John Wycliffe (1380's handwritten translation of the Vulgate, 44 years after his death the pissed off Pope had his bones dug up, crushed and scattered in a river), the William Tyndale's New Testament(1526AD), first full English bible, Myles Coverdale's Bible (1535AD), the Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), The Bishops Bible (1568),... the King James Bible (1611AD) which is just one revision of the Bishops Bible, Robert Aitkien's bible... first English bible (KJV) printed in America (1782... hey, the KJV wasn't even printed IN AMERICA at it's founding, interesting factoid). At this point the Torah had been in America quite a while, being used in the Synagogue in Philadelphia amongst other places. Franklin helped finance the construction of that Synagogue. Ancestors of mine on my mother's side (watch this Toddster!) were prominent Rabbi's there during that time period... didn't paint any helmets but they knew Franklin and Jefferson. Somehow I still don't think that gives me any authority as an expert on the time period based on the relationship... awe shucky darn.

Your explanation of the bible's language propagation basically sucks. Simplified, it was Hebrew to Greek to Latin, back to Hebrew and Greek (to fix the Vulgate errors), to Latin, to English. Then more iterations to end up with KJV amongst hundreds more.

[This message has been edited by Scott-Wa (edited 01-06-2007).]

FWIW, the Lutheran Church actually teaches from 3 versions. Revised Standard Version, King James Version, and Good News for Modern Man (although few use the last one any longer, it's pretty funky IMHO). I went all through Sunday School and Cathechism class using the Revised Standard Version.

My brother, a Baptist minister, also uses the RSV for his classes he teaches and his Sunday services. I'd say that KJV is actually a much more CATHOLIC product than Protestant, but that's just my observation.

John Stricker

PS: just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't mean to say the Catholics WROTE it, but rather they tend to USE it more than many others.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: you mean most protestants, don't you? the KJV is very much a protestant product. my understanding is that the vulgate (of which the douay-rheims is the modern "literal" translation) significantly predates the KJV's constantinopolitan source.

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 01-06-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: FWIW, the Lutheran Church actually teaches from 3 versions. Revised Standard Version, King James Version, and Good News for Modern Man (although few use the last one any longer, it's pretty funky IMHO). I went all through Sunday School and Cathechism class using the Revised Standard Version. My brother, a Baptist minister, also uses the RSV for his classes he teaches and his Sunday services. I'd say that KJV is actually a much more CATHOLIC product than Protestant, but that's just my observation. John Stricker PS: just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't mean to say the Catholics WROTE it, but rather they tend to USE it more than many others.

i considered mentioning the lutherans as an example of a major protestant sect that doesn't rely on the KJV, and thus another example of toddster's over-reaching, but decided to keep it more concise. i'm very glad you brought it up yourself.

considering how close lutheranism is to the heart of the reformation, it doesn't surprise me at all that a lutheran would think of the KJV (and its formal language) as "more catholic".

It has always been somewhat surprising to me that the Lutheran church has been so willing to change with language and times. I say THE CHURCH, not necessarily the church MEMBERS. My granparents and my parents all much preferred the KJV because that's what they were instructed with. The church has also, every decade or so, revamped the Lutheran Book of Worship, which contains the services that are used and hymns. This is ALWAYS adopted very reluctantly.

The reason it surprises me is that in Luther's writings, he was very language conscious, often translating and explaining why he used the words he did. We have to remember that his writings were, for the most part, in German unless they were "official" and then they were in Latin.

If you're into reading that kind of thing, many of his sermons have been translated and are online in the public domain, available for reprint and distribution. They helped me a lot in understanding just what it was that Luther was actually revolting from in the Catholic Church (not a simple thing as the ties between Lutheran and Catholic services are still very strong). (and no, they're not light reading, but if you read them aloud, they would make a powerful presentation)

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i considered mentioning the lutherans as an example of a major protestant sect that doesn't rely on the KJV, and thus another example of toddster's over-reaching, but decided to keep it more concise. i'm very glad you brought it up yourself. considering how close lutheranism is to the heart of the reformation, it doesn't surprise me at all that a lutheran would think of the KJV (and its formal language) as "more catholic".

HOW...did a simple post asking a contributor to cite his sources and accurately quote said sources turn into a bash Toddster fest?

ray...YOU, of all people, have the gaul to correct my spelling?

scott...did you smell blood in the water or what? Welcome to the thread. now go home and take your specious comments with you. BTW, Hebrew was an extinct spoken language after the 6th century BC (that's BC!). Not until the 19th Century was it resurrected. DO tell, how close is modern Hebrew to the original Hebrew? The original was spoken in a multitude of dialects and during Roman times was only partly used in writing, never spoken. And it WASN'T the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the other texts of the Bible. The Hebrew that was used in writing (called Aramaic) was a hodgepodge of the original spoken Hebrew Language with Persian and Latin languages PLUS made-up words (slang) representing abstractions that had not before had a word associated with it. Because of this COMPLEX cluster-**** of linguistic inbreading and the various unauthorized misinterpretations you cited above (thanks for that BTW, saved me the trouble) the Catholic Church authorized the new translation from the original text. Hence, the King James Bible is called the "Authorized Version".

formula88...Obviously you HAVE forgotten my post above. Clearly, I admit a mistake when made. Since I have't made one and since you STILL haven't cited your source for that "version" of the Old Testament I can only assume you are desparate to save face by employing a military tactic of going on the offensive. I'm not interested in playing. I asked a simple favor and you get all bent out of shape. FINE! I don't care what your "quote" source is. Since you refuse to post it, this discussion is over and I will ascribe the credibility to your statement that it deserves.

Jeremiah...you and ray need to get a room together. I've forgotten more about modern theology that you will ever know. Perhaps you would care to post something of meaning to the discussion instead of just riding along with scott trolling for an excuse to jump me.

You all seem to be having such a good time so far be it for me to ruin the party. I'm onto other threads

quote Originally posted by Toddster: the Catholic Church authorized the new translation from the original text. Hence, the King James Bible is called the "Authorized Version".

no. king james was a protestant, the KJV is a product of the reformation. the catholic "authorized version" of the time was the dhouay-rheims.

and the new testament - which ought to be the one most of concern to christians, i should think - was translated from the <ahem>original</ahem> greek, not hebrew:

quote "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."

Correct on both points. KJV was certainly NOT a Catholic version, but the Catholic Church in the US has adopted it as the defacto standard. In fact, if you do some historical reasearch you'll find that the Catholic Church held the KJV as nearly heresey for a time.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe:

quote Originally posted by Toddster: HOW...did a simple post asking a contributor to cite his sources and accurately quote said sources turn into a bash Toddster fest? scott...did you smell blood in the water or what? Welcome to the thread. now go home and take your specious comments with you. BTW, Hebrew was an extinct spoken language after the 6th century BC (that's BC!). Not until the 19th Century was it resurrected. DO tell, how close is modern Hebrew to the original Hebrew? The original was spoken in a multitude of dialects and during Roman times was only partly used in writing, never spoken. And it WASN'T the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the other texts of the Bible. The Hebrew that was used in writing (called Aramaic) was a hodgepodge of the original spoken Hebrew Language with Persian and Latin languages PLUS made-up words (slang) representing abstractions that had not before had a word associated with it. Because of this COMPLEX cluster-**** of linguistic inbreading and the various unauthorized misinterpretations you cited above (thanks for that BTW, saved me the trouble) the Catholic Church authorized the new translation from the original text. Hence, the King James Bible is called the "Authorized Version". Jeremiah...you and ray need to get a room together. I've forgotten more about modern theology that you will ever know. Perhaps you would care to post something of meaning to the discussion instead of just riding along with scott trolling for an excuse to jump me. You all seem to be having such a good time so far be it for me to ruin the party. I'm onto other threads

LOL... accused of trolling when you put out misinformation. I'll put my background on the Hebrew language over yours any day Toddster. It was taken out of commission about 200CE (AD, not BC) as the spoken language, it NEVER stopped being the language of prayer for Jews, and they didn't stop reading the Torahs that STILL exist going back to the middle ages and beyond. It's comparable to Latin, it isn't spoken anymore as the daily language of life, but it wasn't forgotten, wasn't lost. The Jewish oral tradition of reading the Torah and the way it's done ensured the survival. Modern Hebrew is different, I pointed out that vowels were added to the written language as one example. That's why I suggested to get a good translation, you need to attend a Synagogue. If you ever see HOW the Torah is read, you'd understand why it could survive over the generations intact orally even though there are no vowels. The person reading has two people standing next to them to assist in the reading to ensure no mistakes are made, a Jew having their Bar Mitzvah ceremony studies for months prior to getting to read with their teachers ensuring they know and understand the passage they will get to read. Closest thing I can compare it to is the Christian orders of Monks that would copy the bible but with constant checking of spelling, pronounciation, etc.. and there is a specific order of the reading of the Torah that includes discussion by the congregation of what it all means. The Torahs that are used in Synagogues are a heck of a lot more accurate than anything use in Christianity, the Dead Sea scrolls have backed that up. There is also a lot more documentation throughout the ages (Talmud etc.) that argues and discusses what is written in the Torah.

Your claim that Hebrew was extinct is something that is just not true. It became more like Latin for a long long time, and was revived during the time period you stated as a common language. During the time period you claim it went extinct, YES there were Aramaic versions, just like today there are english translations. The Talmud was mostly in Aramaic because that was the common written (and legal) language of the time.

But throughout the Diaspora, the Torah was read during the three daily prayers, twice in Hebrew and once in Aramaic Targum Onkelos. Jews were often illiterate in the language of the country they resided in, but they've always been able to speak and read Hebrew, that's why it was so easy for Israel to revive it as a modern language. All attempts to wipe it out have failed and their have been plenty. Synagogues in the US often have ancient Torahs that were smuggled out of countries that would have destroyed them. The history of Hebrew has no break in the chain within the Jewish communities worldwide.

Two books of the Bible were written originally in Aramaic, Daniel and Ezra. It doesn't really cause an issue because the two languages are so similar.

The only blood I smelled in the water was you oozing bad and incomplete information. I don't need to go home, I am home My specious comments can stay. BTW there is a difference between authorized and unauthorized, just because someone authorized a new version, that doesn't mean all the other versions are now unauthorized. Many of the versions I mentioned were still used and some are still used, just depends on your denomination.

Just wanted to interject some information that was a bit more accurate. You may return to your previous flamefest.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: HOW...did a simple post asking a contributor to cite his sources and accurately quote said sources turn into a bash Toddster fest? people, have the gaul to correct my spelling? ruin the party.

That's GALL, Einstein.
Gaul is an old name for the part of Europe now mostly known as France.
I would expect better from the infallible, all knowing, self anointed expert on everything under the sun.
At least you haven't (yet) felt the need to start name calling. THAT is usually what ruins the party.
*************************************************************************
And just what does a dispute about the translation of the bible have to do with a change in the US government from a one party system to a two party system????
**************************************************************************

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-07-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Correct on both points. KJV was certainly NOT a Catholic version, but the Catholic Church in the US has adopted it as the defacto standard. In fact, if you do some historical reasearch you'll find that the Catholic Church held the KJV as nearly heresey for a time. John Stricker

I am a Roman Catholic and no Catholic church I am aware of uses the KJV of the bible.