Daniel Tries to Save the ShanMonster
The Initial Letter
Well you are off a little...Explanation: you have Catholicism mixed up with Bible
Believing Christianty (sic). The two are not the same and NEVER will the twain
meet. Many of your descriptions are the Roman Catholic Jesus usually portrayed by
Hellywood. Very accuate (sic)! But the real Lord Jesus Christ is (present tense
as well as past) nothing of the kind. Get yourself a King James Bible and see for
yourself. I did. You made a feeble attempt to quote some bible but it was'nt
(sic) bible at all, typical. The FACT that true followers of he Lord Jesus Christ
are still around says somthing (sic) if you think about it. If it's not true it
won't last long. Last thought: You (rock groups, news media, newspapers, etc.) won't
leave Jesus alone because he won't leave you alone. Get saved today !
My First Response
Hello, Daniel. Nice to meet someone who'd enjoy a scholastic debate on religious issues.
Many people are too far caught up in the faith aspect of things to be logical. Here are my
responses to your arguments.
Well you are off a little...Explanation: you have Catholicism mixed up with Bible
Believing Christianty. The two are not the same and NEVER will the twain meet.
This is a matter of debate that I am not fully qualified to answer. I was never trained in
a Catholic background. Although most of the images I used on my "Jesus Was Gother Than You"
Page are of Catholic origin, that is only because the Catholics were the most prolific with
their artwork budgets. I do not believe that Jesus, a Jew, should be universally portrayed as
a blue-eyed, blond- or light brown-haired Aryan. Chances are, the man was quite dark-skinned,
with black or brown eyes and dark hair. He was probably quite hirsute, as well.
Admittedly, most of what Catholics follow is not the Bible, but formulae derived loosely from
philosophical interpretations of the Bible by long-dead white men. I hold my own
interpretations from personal academic studies (I was a classics major in university, and I
took numerous courses in Bible literature, comparative religions, religious history, and
religious anthropology.)
Many of your descriptions are the Roman Catholic Jesus usually portrayed by
Hellywood. Very accuate (sic)!
Considering I do not watch tv and have never seen Jesus Christ Superstar, I'm not
quite sure what you mean. Perhaps you could delineate how my interpretations match up with
those of Hollywood producers (whom I generally hold nothing but loathing of).
Get yourself a King James Bible and see for yourself. I did. You made a feeble
attempt to quote some bible but it was'nt bible at all, typical.
Hmmm. Believe it or not, the King James Version of the Bible is not infallible. Each
translation of the Bible has its own merits and flaws. There can be no 100% completely
accurate translation of the Bible due to the myriad of nuances of the Hebrew and Aramaic
languages. Although the King James Version may be a superior translation to some, it is not
without bias. King James held a notorious phobia of witches, a phobia which flavoured how he
had the Bible translated. For example, until the mid-1500s, the much-quoted scripture Exodus
22:18 had used the gender-neutral maleficos for the word "witch." By the mid-sixteenth
century, the new Bible translations were feeding the fires of gynocide.
If you look to the original Greek, you will see that the actual word translates to
"poisoner." James had it switched to "witch" because of his personal belief system. And where
you find one mistranslation, you will find others.
In addition, I did quote from an actual Bible, although it may not be a translation
you are familiar with. I used the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
because it was the nearest Bible to me when I started designing my web page.
The FACT that true followers of he Lord Jesus Christ are still around says
somthing (sic) if you think about it.
Yes, but that in itself cannot be a logical reason for the validity of belief. Today, there
exist true believers of Hitler, of Vlad Tepes, of a flat earth, and of Santa Claus.
If it's not true it won't last long. Last thought: You (rock groups, news media,
newspapers, etc.) won't leave Jesus alone because he won't leave you alone. Get saved today !
My suggestion is that you read a wonderful poem by Algernon Charles Swinburne called
"Hymn to Proserpine." That pretty much explains my personal views of the historical figure that we call Jesus.
Thanks for the discussion!
The Second Letter
Thought you might like a brief reply on this part of your reply and a CHALLENGE 10,000.00,
which I've had for quite some time. The challenge is this: Prove "beyond a reasonable shawdow
of a doubt that the King James Bible has an error in it and I will give 10,000.00." Typos and
printing errors do not count. Those of us who have had the honor and priveledge of studying
under DR. Ruckman and DR. Gipp KNOW the subject and we consider secular educated "religous"
people too funny for words. You may indeed be an intelligent man in many areas but, when it
comes to the Bible.... pass on please. Don't forget the challenge. Oh yes, I do have the
money.
Hmmm. Believe it or not, the King James Version of the Bible is not infallible.
Each translation of the Bible has its own merits and flaws. There can be no 100%
completely accurate translation of the Bible due to the myriad of nuances of the
Hebrew and Aramaic languages.
You mean God is so puny he could'nt get his words into my language? What kind of God do you
have ? Mine can do it !
Although the King James Version may be a superior translation to some, it is not
without bias.
If it does have some bias, that dose not mean it has errors. King James had nothing to do
with the translating anyways, he ONLY authorized the translation (see the book: The men behind
the King James Bible by: payne or Translators revived by: Alexander McClures)
King James held a notorious phobia of witches, a phobia which flavoured how he had the
Bible translated. For example, until the mid-1500s, the much-quoted scripture Exodus
22:18 had used the gender-neutral "maleficos" for the word "witch." By the
mid-sixteenth century, the new Bible translations were feeding the fires of gynocide.
Gee..... this must have been a real hindrance to God. My, My, maybe he should have waited
for a King to get on the throne that would have influenced the translating committee to
translate the word poisoner. But guess what God knew what he was doing since he knew what the
next 400 years would be like. Witch is the right word for ENGLISH. Don't believe it ? Next
Halloween see how many kids dress up as poisoners.
If you look to the original Greek
There is no such thing as the "original Greek" The originals have long since disappeared.
If you meant the original Greek language, you should have said " A greek text says...." But
then the question would be which greek text? An alexandrian greek text like Wescotts or a
receptus greek text like Beza's. ALL SATANIC ""bibles"" come from the alexandrian greek
text/ bar none ALL ! Only ONE (get that ) comes from the textus receptus from which comes
your King James Bible. Of course, a perfect God only needs to write ONE Bible.
you will see that the actual word translates to "poisoner." James had it switched to
"witch" because of his personal belief system. And where you find one mistranslation,
you will find others.
I agree !! if it does have one mistake Throw it out and forget the whole thing.
In addition, I did quote from an actual Bible, although it may not be a
translation you are familiar with. I used the New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures because it was the nearest Bible to me when I started designing my web
page.
The new world translation is the Jehovah witness's bible. Jw's we call them. They are not
Christians, since the basic tenant of Christianty is belief that Jesus is God manifested in the
flesh. John 1:1 in a new world translation says In the beginning was the Word and the word
was with God and the word was a god. Calling Jesus a god is calling him a created being like
you or me. Also see john 1:18. KING JAMES God's word says In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. See the difference? By the way Quake has
numerous overtones to Jesus Christ. See the switches and those paintings on the wall. I've
seen them.
As I was saying you can't leave Jesus Christ alone because he won't leave you alone.
My Second Response
Daniel:
The challenge you offer me is an impossible one and, I'm afraid, a complete waste of time.
The task is not impossible because I feel that The King James Bible is infallible, but because
your faith in it is.
Also, although you mention Dr. Ruckman and Dr. Gipp, you do not tell me who they are or what
makes them authorities.
Next, you cannot consider me a secularly educated "religious" person because, although I
have been secularly educated, I am not by any means religious. I am agnostic. In addition,
please do not assume that I am an "intelligent man." It disturbs me to think that you would
automatically assume that a person who could hold an intellectual discussion must be male. I
am decidedly not male, and if you had examined my website, you would have soon discovered
this.
You mean God is so puny he could'nt get his words into my language? What kind of God do
you have ? Mine can do it !
Perhaps your God is a polyglot. I have no god.
(see the book: The men behind the King James Bible by: payne or Translators revived
by: Alexander McClures)
I will be looking for a copy of this book. I love to read.
Gee..... this must have been a real hindrance to God. My, My, maybe he should have
waited for a King to get on the throne that would have influenced the translating
committee to translate the word poisoner. But guess what God knew what he was doing
since he knew what the next 400 years would be like. Witch is the right word for
ENGLISH. Don't believe it ? Next Halloween see how many kids dress up as poisoners.
No, "witch" is not the correct word for English. Look to the etymology of the word.
"Witch" may be related to the German weihen or consecrate, and even, ironically,
to the English "victim" (or, someone killed in a religious ritual). The word's underlying
signification is of a "priestess," or "holy woman."
In addition, the incorrect use of the word "witch" has led to some nasty religious
persecution. I know several witches (whether they are Wiccans or otherwise), and the
discrimination they have had to cope with is almost insurmountable.
There is no such thing as the "original Greek" The originals have long since
disappeared.
Touché!
ALL SATANIC ""bibles"" come from the alexandrian greek text/ bar none ALL !
Please define for me a Satanic Bible.
Only ONE (get that ) comes from the textus receptus from which comes your King
James Bible. Of course, a perfect God only needs to write ONE Bible.
Why would a perfect God need to write a Bible? Would not the spirit of a perfect God
infuse the beliefs of all?
The new world translation is the Jehovah witness's bible. Jw's we call them. They are
not Christians, since the basic tenant of Christianty is belief that Jesus is God
manifested in the flesh.
How do you define Christianity? Perhaps the basic tenant you list is part of the
definition of one religion, but how can any one person be 100% sure that they belong to the
true one? Every religion has people who believe it is the only true belief. Innumerable wars
have been fought over this zeal.
John 1:1 in a new world translation says In the beginning was the Word and the word
was with God and the word was a god. Calling Jesus a god is calling him a created
being like you or me. Also see john 1:18. KING JAMES God's word says In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. See the
difference?
Yes, I see the difference, and am well familiar with it. Nonetheless, the "un-Christian"
JWs have their own reasons (based on this Scripture) for why their Bible is better than the
King James Version. Arguments exist for all Bibles, and my Greek is a bit too shaky to be
able to investigate thoroughly for myself.
By the way Quake has numerous overtones to Jesus Christ. See the switches and those
paintings on the wall. I've seen them.
And?
As I was saying you can't leave Jesus Christ alone because he won't leave you alone.
No, I have yet to be bothered by Jesus. He was, by all accounts, a wonderful and caring
man, and not prone to dishing out persecution. It was he who supposedly issued the Golden
Rule, a rule which I believe is beautiful in its simplicity and wisdom.
It bothers me that you take a belittling attitude. Although you may believe your morals
and beliefs are superior (and who knows? Perhaps they are.), the demeaning means you have of
presenting your arguments are not conducive to a good debate. There are ways to argue for
something you wholeheartedly believe in without resorting to flaming.
Letter Number Three
I apoligize for assuming you were a man . I did visit your website.. interesting ? I suppose
the DAVEman part of your e-mail address threw me off. Sorry.
The challenge you offer me is an impossible one and, I'm afraid, a complete
waste of time. The task is not impossible because I feel that The King
James Bible is infallible, but because your faith in it is.
Why would you say "because my faith in it is" ? I am offering a good deal of money to
ANYone who can prove there is an error in it. Surely this tkes some good amount of faith and
confidence.
Also, although you mention Dr. Ruckman and Dr. Gipp, you do not tell me who
they are or what makes them authorities.
Again I apologize for assuming you would know who they are. Dr. Ruckman is THE formost
living authority on the King James Bible issue. Dr. Gipp although in a different ministry
than Ruckman, did study under Dr. Ruckman.
You can visit a website that a Christian bookstore has put together with some of his
material. If you do like to read. I do not have the address handy right now but, thtere
is probably a link at:
---------------
http://www.aloha.net/%7Ebstaggs/kjb.html
------------------
Next, you cannot consider me a secularly educated "religious" person
because, although I have been secularly educated, I am not by any means
religious. I am agnostic. In addition, please do not assume that I am an
"intelligent man." It disturbs me to think that you would automatically
assume that a person who could hold an intellectual discussion must be male.
I am decidedly not male, and if you had examined my website, you would have
soon discovered this.
EVERY person on the face of the earth is religious about something. Sadly most people's god
are usually themselves.
You mean God is so puny he could'nt get his words into my language? What
kind of God do you have ? Mine can do it !
Perhaps your God is a polyglot. I have no god.
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1
No, "witch" is not the correct word for English. Look to the etymology of
the word. "Witch" may be related to the German "weihen" or "consecrate,"
and even, ironically, to the English "victim" (or, someone killed in a
religious ritual). The word's underlying signification is of a "priestess,"
or "holy woman."
After seeing your website, I can understand your being upset about God's guideance in the translators to keep
the word witch. Still up-to-date and in keeping with Hebrews 4:12 For the WORD (witch) of God is quick and
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and
of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It sure knows you !
Please define for me a Satanic Bible.
That's easy. One that has errors in it. Also, I have never come across one yet that didn't have multiple
amounts of subtle New Age philosophy. This is being done to to eventually bring about the One world (new world)
order. Which of course will have a one world government, money, religion and "bible". For we are not ignorant
of the devil's devices. The first thing recorded in Genesis about the devil is that he Questions the Word of
God. See Genesis 3:1-5. All new bibles question the Word of God.
Why would a perfect God need to write a Bible? Would not the spirit of a
perfect God infuse the beliefs of all?
The Bible was written for your benefit. To show you God's will for your life. To keep my explaniation as brief
as possible let me illustrate. If you wanted to communicate to a bunch of ants building a home by a dangerous
place and wanted to tell them it was a dangerous place how who you tell them? The level you're on is not even
close to ant level in ANYway. Well, it's similar to God communicating to us. He is on such a diffenent level
BECAUSE OF SIN, so he uses man's methods. That also, is why he became a man to bear our sins and payed for them
so we won't have to go to hell, which is the penalty for sin.
How do you define Christianity? Perhaps the basic tenant you list is part
of the definition of one religion, but how can any one person be 100% sure
that they belong to the true one? Every religion has people who believe it
is the only true belief. Innumerable wars have been fought over this zeal.
CHRISTianty .. see the word CHRIST. All you have to do is see what CHRIST said to know what the tenants of
CHRISTianty are. THAT is why the devil has sooooo many perversions out there. So you will be confused and NOT
KNOW what Christ said !
Nonetheless, the
"un-Christian" JWs have their own reasons (based on this Scripture) for why
their Bible is better than the King James Version. Arguments exist for all
Bibles, and my Greek is a bit too shaky to be able to investigate
thoroughly for myself.
Interestingly enough, the jw's used to use nothing but a King James Bible UNTIL Bible
believers like me showed them that Jesus IS GOD as well as other false doctrines. SO, instead
of changing their beliefs to fit what GOD said they changed the Word of God. Presto! The new
world perversion. Just like the Devil ! SEE Genesis 3:1-5
By the way Quake has numerous overtones to Jesus Christ. See the switches
and those paintings on the wall. I've seen them.
And?
......And it shows you that the spirits that guided those ID people know who THE God is.
They just can't leave him alone. Can they ?
No, I have yet to be bothered by Jesus. He was, by all accounts, a
wonderful and caring man, and not prone to dishing out persecution.
( READ matthew chapter 23 then make that statement )
It was he who supposedly issued the Golden Rule, a rule which I believe is
beautiful in its simplicity and wisdom.
IF you have'nt been bothered by Jesus Then why did you dedicate a whole web page to him? If he was just a man.
Surely you don't spend THAT mush time and energy on just any one man. Do you ?? I'd say that he must have been
on your mind for you to go to that great a lenght.
There are ways to argue for something you wholeheartedly believe in without resorting
to flaming.
Centaintly, not one of my better characteristics, although God has used it. I'm not
perfect....yet.
My Third Response
Daniel:
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I recently got another job and I've been working seven
days a week, leaving little time for email....
I apoligize for assuming you were a man . I did visit your website.. interesting ? I suppose
the DAVEman part of your e-mail address threw me off. Sorry.
No problem. I forgot about the email address. It's "borrowed." Now, on to the more
important stuff...
The challenge you offer me is an impossible one and, I'm afraid, a complete
waste of time. The task is not impossible because I feel that The King
James Bible is infallible, but because your faith in it is.
Why would you say "because my faith in it is" ? I am offering a good deal of money to
ANYone who can prove there is an error in it. Surely this tkes some good amount of faith and
confidence.
I am sensing a definite lack of communication here. Perhaps you are not familiar with the
word "infallible." Allow me to refresh your memory. "Infallible" means "incapable of error."
I was saying exactly the same thing that you now are. You will never lose your money because
no matter what proof is offered to you, you will find a reason why it would not be admissable.
You have already informed me that God had "poisoner" changed to "witch" because he knew "what
the next three hundred years would be like."
The implication is that any mistranslations are inspired by God. This would mean, by your
logic, that there are no mistranslations, only holy updates. Do you understand my quandary?
You can visit a website that a Christian bookstore has put together with some of his material.
If you do like to read. I do not have the address handy right now but, thtere is probably a
link at:
http://www.aloha.net/%7Ebstaggs/kjb.html
I checked out the link. Very intriguing reading, this.
EVERY person on the face of the earth is religious about something. Sadly most people's god
are usually themselves.
In order to ascertain for myself whether I was truly religious about something or not, I
looked up the definition in Webster's Third International Dictionary. There are several
meanings, some of which do pertain to me.
- "Relating to that which is acknowledged as ultimate reality: manifesting devotion
to and relecting the nature of the divine or that which one holds to be of ultimate
importance: exemplifying the influence of religion." Firstly, I don't presume as to
know any ultimate reality. The realities I see are constantly changing. As far as
"manifesting devotion to .. that which one holds to be of ultimate importance," well,
I suppose I do brush my teeth, sleep every night, and refrain from killing people.
This could be construed as "religious." And, I do not believe that I personally
exemplify the influence of religion, except, perhaps, through my Christmas shopping.
- "Committed, dedicated, or consecrated to the service of the divine: set apart to
religion." By this definition, I cannot be considered religious.
- "Of or relating to religion: concerned with religion: teaching or setting forth
religion." Perhaps here I can be considered religious as I am definitely concerned
with religion. I am thoroughly fascinated with the psychological and folkloric aspects
of religion. Nonetheless, I don't think that this definition of religious was what you
were referring to in your missive.
- "Scrupulously and conscientiously faithful: fervent, zealous." Hmmm... There's
some fodder for thought here. Yes, I am faithful, conscientiously and scrupulously so.
I do not commit adultery (which I'm sure would please my husband). I do not cheat on
exams or tests. I do not steal, although I have many opportunities to. Now, before
this becomes a catalogue of good deeds, I'll go to the next part of the definition...
I am fervent about some things. I fervently believe in free speech. I am zealous in
my skepticism.
- "One (as a monk or nun) who is bound by vows, sequestered from secular concerns,
and devoted to a life of piety." This definition has nothing to do with me.
So, on the basis of this definition, I would have to say I am religious in some manners,
albeit not the traditional ones. I am religious where religious is synonymous with "habitual."
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1
I am afraid you misunderstood me. I did not say there is no God. I said I have no God.
There is a difference.
After seeing your website, I can understand your being upset about God's guideance
in the translators to keep the word witch. Still up-to-date and in keeping with Hebrews 4:12
For the WORD (witch) of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is
a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It sure knows you !
If your implication here is that I am a witch, you are wrong, although you are not the first
to falsely label me as such. As I have said before, I do not ascribe to any religion.
Please define for me a Satanic Bible.
That's easy. One that has errors in it. Also, I have never come across one yet that didn't
have multiple amounts of subtle New Age philosophy.
What do you mean by New Age philosophy? Since hundreds of translations occurred well before
the so-called "New Age," I'm not sure what you mean.
All new bibles question the Word of God.
Then all old Bibles do not? What about the versions which were translated before the King
James Version? Did they too question the word of God? Were they Satanic? And if so, does
this mean that there were no Christians before the King James Version (aside from those
who could read the textus receptus)?
The Bible was written for your benefit. To show you God's will for your life. To keep my
explaniation as brief as possible let me illustrate. If you wanted to communicate to a bunch of
ants building a home by a dangerous place and wanted to tell them it was a dangerous place how
who you tell them?
Since ants have a hive mentality, the best route would probably be by somehow informing the
Queen ant, and then allowing the information to percolate down through the workers. I don't
really see how this equates with having a Bible written.
How do you define Christianity?
CHRISTianty .. see the word CHRIST. All you have to do is see what CHRIST said to know what
the tenants of CHRISTianty are. THAT is why the devil has sooooo many perversions out there.
So you will be confused and NOT KNOW what Christ said !
I am well aware that "Christ" is the root word of "Christianity." Nonetheless, your
definition confuses me. Do you mean that true Christians follow only the words of Christ? If
so, then it goes to follow the words of Paul, Matthew, Luke, etcetera are subpar and are
therefore imperfect interpretations.
Interestingly enough, the jw's used to use nothing but a King James Bible UNTIL Bible believers
like me showed them that Jesus IS GOD as well as other false doctrines.
You're saying that the JWs were Christians until you showed them false doctrines and that
Jesus is God. That's both ironic and amusing!
IF you have'nt been bothered by Jesus Then why did you dedicate a whole web page to him? I'd
say that he must have been on your mind for you to go to that great a lenght.
Actually, I spent about two hours total on that page, definitely not a huge percentage of
my time. I spend far more time on my witch-craze pages: something on the order of eight hours
or more a week. Let's just say that my "Jesus Was Gother Than You" page was a spur of the
moment kind of thing.
There are ways to argue for something you wholeheartedly believe in without
resorting to flaming.
Centaintly, not one of my better characteristics, although God has used it. I'm not perfect....
yet.
This raises an interesting question. Are you saying that Jesus "resorted" to flaming,
something which is not a "better characteristic," something "not perfect?" This implies that
God lowers himself to imperfection. Is this what you meant?
Anyway, I have to leave now to do some more work on my witch-craze page. I'm going to make
a page about a man tortured as a witch in 1628. I have located both the trial records and a
letter the poor man managed to sneak out to his daughter. It makes for very poignant reading.
If you're interested, the URL will be
[http://www.bigfoot.com/~ShanMonster/witch/bamberg.html]. It'll be up within two or three days.
Bye!
[ Next Letter | The ShanMonster Page |
Email ]
