tuscl

The Holy Bible - translations

Dominic77
Cleveland, Ohio
Friday, February 3, 2017 10:14 AM
Which revisions / translations do y'all have? I have an NIV and a NSV. Do I need a new copy or are these still good, clear translations? I have a King James, that isn't mine, but was from a passed away member, so I guess it's mine too now. That is the most cryptic one.

57 comments

  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    NIV is a good one; it is a functional translation done from a slightly conservative outlook so it should be balanced with translations from a more liberal standpoint, like the NTSB (Is that what you meant by NSV? I couldn't find a reference to that translation.) The KJV and the NKJV are both literal translations with all of those limitations; the NKJV at least updates the language a bit. My choice for a really good study Bible is the Serendipity Study Bible, an NIV translation with extensive questions in the margins and a lot of background info in the footnotes. Also, excellent maps in the back. A Bible dictionary and a decent Concordance are also very useful. There are a lot of good software programs out there that offer multiple translations and built in concordances. Avoid programs that offer only the KJV. They're only that was because KJV has no copyrights, which makes them cheap. The International Bible Society offers a website with access to the NIV and a few other translation. ([view link])
  • shailynn
    •
    7 years ago
    Oh here comes Captain save a ho trying to enlighten some strippers with scriptures! Hahaha - just kidding - I couldn't resist!
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    I take exception to the NIV translation, because it was specifically prepared as a reaction against RSV and NRSV. It was prepared to support religious fundamentalism. And truck loads of NIV bibles were given away to fundamentalist non-denominational evangelical churches. RSV and now NRSV are what the Episcopalian Church uses, and many others who use the Revised Common Lectionary. I guess Common Lectionary started with Methodists and Lutherans, but now it is also Episcopalian. It is patterned after the Vatican II Lectionary, with the 3 years of Sundays, and the long established key readings for the Sunday's of the major feast seasons. The Catholic Church uses NAB, and there were 3 revisions of this, and now there is a 4th. [view link] Many people like New Jerusalem, and it has excellent foot notes and cross references. The translation is a bit wild, like more than many churches would want to use in liturgy. But it is an outstanding bible. If you want to understand, you need to have access to this. King James is a big factor in the literature of the English language, so I would never discard one. But it is not a very good translation, because of what little was available too them, and because of the King's directives, "Make me a beautiful Bible." New King James is bull shit, just a way of trying to propagate King James in fundamentalist churches. So, RSV, NRSV, NAB ( 4 versions ). and New Jerusalem. Now you will find most of these at public libraries, and often now online. So you can compare them. I have done a great deal of this. Anytime you find a curious passage, see how others have translated it. And remember, the bible is usually translated holistically. And then also look close at the foot notes. And in my opinion, the cross references are extremely important, because this tells you how the bible is understood, and how the translators were understanding it. Most of the pithy passages are echoed in the Psalms, and sometimes these translations are prepared by doing Psalms first, and publishing it separately. Usually it is only Catholic Bibles which have much in terms of cross references, because the bible is being understood as a part of liturgy, not as a list of prescriptions. So cross references go back to the Douay. But in NAB and New Jerusalem, there are far more cross references. I find these very important. Also, if your really want to understand, I cannot enough recommend the Doubleday Anchor Bible Series. This is about 6 shelf feet of books. John's Gospel is 4 volumes, exodus is 2. You can get this in a book a month form. But some chuches, like Episcopalians, often have it in their library. You can get it book by book via interlibrary loans, as academic libraries often have it. And this is good: Oxford Bible Commentary is outstanding. And it is written assuming you are reading NSRV. Where as the Oxford Bible Companion and Oxford Bible Concordance, are, IMO, books of little use. And then the Jewish Study Bible, by Jewish Publications Society, is very good, and its comments are totally different, historical rabbinical views. There is other good material. But be careful, the publishing of reactionary Christianist literature is a huge industry, and it never stops proliferating. Most of the time you can recognize it by its emphasis on belief and identity, "I am a Christian". And then the Apocrypha. Maybe you don't want to carry those extra pages around with you, but you still need access to it. So Catholic bibles, since St. Jerome, have it. NAB, New Jerusalem. That is they have most of the Apocrypha. And these since Vatican II do not have Jerome's thing in Tobit about the newly wed nights of chastity. That was a mistranslation. That is gone. Most Protestant Bibles do not have the Apocrypha. But you can buy NSRV with or without it. I think yellow covers is with out it, and red covers is with it. And the Episcopalian church has gone to using it. And these Bibles have the entire Apocrypha, not just what Cathoilc Bibles have. But that extra amount, most of it is derivative from the Prophetic division. So it adds pages, but without content. And also, some of the Apocrypha is in Catholic bibles, added to the other books. For example, there are additions to the book of Daniel. And then Baruch is coming out of the Apocrypha, and there is also this Letter of Jeremiah, which is added to Jeremiah. Now this is all clearly explained in these editions, and you may not find these additions important. But of Daniel, most people do, and with Baruch as well. But you must have access to all of this, as well as to multiple translations and sets of foot notes and cross references. In the Doubleday Anchor Bible Series, they let the author for each volume prepare their own translation for that book. And these translations are wild. The New Jerusalem Bible is somewhat wild, but these go much further. And this shows how much different the results are if you translate just one book, versus trying to translate the whole thing together, following cross references ( these give a big clue to the theology and underlying interpretation ). And so in the Doubleday Series, after providing their translation, that scholar goes about explaining it. Very hard to do that if you were translating the entire bible together. We all need to understand our spiritual traditions, so that we can be adequately prepared to defend ourselves against the bullshit of religious fundamentalism. Good Luck SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    P.S. It is hard for us who are not ancient language scholars to directly critique the translations. But what they write in the foot notes will give you a good idea as to how they are translating it. For example, Harper Collins Study Bible, NSRV, has that outstanding translation. But they have their own comments, and they seem to be of a prescriptive belief system type. But the edition is still worth having, as you need to be able to defend yourself against those views. The Oxford NSRV editions have very good comments, though they are too few. The New Jerusalem Bible has a great translation, and in my opinion some of the best comments. But if you are attending a church, it is also desirable to have word for word what they are using. But you need multiple editions, or at least access to them, in order to develop a good understanding. SJG
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    7 years ago
    King James 1611 only
  • larryfishsticks
    •
    7 years ago
    $10 to anyone that actually read SJGs posts
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    @SJG:. Huh? Have you ever read the NIV? Was it produced by a relatively conservative group, yes, as I made clear in my post. That said, it was produced with integrity. The IBS has done yeoman work translating into a lot of foreign, to us, languages. Its first edition was published in 1978. The first edition of the NRSV, to which the NIV was, according to you, published to counter, was published in 1989. Wow. Those NIV guys were really smart reacting 11 years before the event! Both translations are very good, and neither gives me any pause at all. I agree that the Jerusalem Bible is a good translation - it's just a bit less accessible. SJG, i find your ignorance about the Bible, and about Christians in general, to be truly appalling.
  • grand1511
    •
    7 years ago
    I can't believe this discussion has gone this far in this forum.
  • DallasCowboys
    •
    7 years ago
    I only read KJV.
  • Jascoi
    •
    7 years ago
    i probably should read the bible more. gideon version.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Gideon's distribute KJVs.
  • jackslash
    •
    7 years ago
    The King James Version is God's word.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    7 years ago
    Finally some members get my damn joke LMFAO I did get raised in a KJV home but after my Bible college training once I finished high school actually opened my eyes to a whole new world of translations and the reasons why I should use as many as possible...and no it's not to find the correct wording of text to fit my lifestyle but that would make a funny joke lol...I use my penciled in and erase Bible for that...I also greatly use the nearly inspired version also known as the NIV my all time favorite is the NLT aka New Living ( paraphrase translations)
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Hey, c'mon. Everyone knows that Jesus, Moses and all those other guys spoke old English! ;-)
  • Hugh_G_Rection
    •
    7 years ago
    Amazingly enough, There are Cliff Notes for the Bible: [view link]
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg, I said NIV was made to counter RSV, as well as NSRV. It was a politically motivated translation, to support the "I am a Christian movement". ATACdawg, I find you to be a twit. Curious new development. Yesterday I got to spend some time with a new NIV Study Bible. This is a new edition, and a quite new NIV translation. There have been quite a few NIV translations it seems. The one I looked at was put out by [view link] Lots of color pictures, no Apocrypha, and very thin paper. But it was still a huge book. I found the translation to be believable, not something to promote christianist identity. And the same for the notes too. I was surprised. And what's more, it had lots of cross references too. These are important because these usually reveal the way the Bible is being understood by the translators. So I still say that you need lots of different translations with their notes, and it is always good if you are in a study group or attending services, to have word for word what others are using. But so NIV today is not always as bad as it had been. SJG
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    I say again, SJG, the NRSV was published 11 years after the NIV! So, there are apparently three possibilities that would enable the NIV to be published as a counter. I will allow that it is possible that it is possible that it was meant to counter the RSV Bible, although the amount of time from 1952 (first publication of whole RSV without Apocrypha) to 1978 (publication of first NIV) would seem to make that pretty extreme. Possibility #1: The NIV guys were clairvoyant. Possibility #2: God spoke to the NIV guys and dictated their translation. Possibility #3: you are just plain full of crap. A lot of the early controversy around the RSV centered around the OT, which the critics stated was translated from a "Jewish" perspective. Imagine that! It was translated by a group formed from the National Council of Churches and hence, therefore, was done with a liberal view. That does not mean it was mistranslated, any more than the IBS mistranslated Scripture. When making a functional translation, there are always instances where there is no single, direct translation is possible. This is where minor, I repeat, MINOR differences between different translations occur. I think that you would have a very hard time finding any substantive differences. Did I not say that it was useful to investigate various translations? Yes, I did.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    I said it quite clearly. And you, who as far as I can fathom, have nothing but contempt for Christians, now magnanimously deign to tell us how to study and which translations are worthy of use. Wow. Thank-you very much. I told you that I found your lack of knowledge appalling. I misspoke. What I really meant was that your ignorance and your willingness to share it in a post longer than the rest put together is appalling. Note that I have not ventured upon personal insult. You, on the other hand did when you called me a Twitter. From you, I will accept it as a badge of honor.
  • JohnSmith69
    •
    7 years ago
    As an aside, all versions of the Bible condemn women stripping naked and men paying to have sex with them. So why the fuck are we discussing translations of the Bible.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Just trying to justify ourselves, JS. Maybe you could do a new translation, the JSRRSV (that's the John Smith Really Revised Sexy Version). :-D
  • JohnSmith69
    •
    7 years ago
    Here's Genesis 1:1-4 from the JSRRSV version of the Bible. Verse 1. In the beginning, God created beautiful young women. He made some brunettes, while others got hair that was black. A few lucky ones got light blond hair. But the most beautiful were the redheads. Verse 2. To many of these women God gave small breasts, A and B cups. A few lucky ones got C cups. But the most beautiful received cups measured as a D. God's grace shines upon the D cups. Verse 3. These beautiful women come in many ages, but those with God's greatest favor are the 18 year olds. Their bodies are worthy or worship and praise. Here is my favorite translation of one of the 10 commandments. Women shalt not have fake breasts, and men shall not allow their women to have fake breasts. It is an abomination unto the Lord. And finally, the last verse in the Bible, my translation of Rev 22:21 -- Fuck you Jackie.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Lol
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    7 years ago
    LMFAO OMG brilliant LMFAO
  • georgmicrodong
    •
    7 years ago
    Aesop's Fables has always worked for me.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    @JS: I look forward with bated breath for your translation of the David and Bathsheba narrative! ;-)
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg, I have said, NIV was prepared as a reaction against RSV, and then continuing to NRSV. So that kind of a translation is not likely to be very good. I am well aware of how NIV has been used. It has been a huge part of that blight on our society, the "I am a Christian Movement". I guess this is just the legacy of how King James had been used, as a prescriptive text. And so when people start making better translations, some people are going to react negatively. You ATAC should like such a person, one who supports the I am a Christian Movement. But I have also said, I have lifted my objection to NIV because of this newest translation and the good notes and cross references in this new Zondervan Study Bible. SJG
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Wow, SJG. You have me all wrong. I have no sympathy whatever for the "fundamentalists" who in truth are nothing like it. I won't even count Donald Trump as a Christian, though he claims it. Don't even get me started on Franklin Graham! I am a member of the Presbyterian Church USA. You probably aren't aware of it, but our denomination supports the ordination of women and LBGT pastors, elders and deacons, as long as they are celibate or in a married relationship. Pretty conservative, huh. Don't get me wrong, I am so happy that you now find the NIV "acceptable". I have used it without reservation since 1984, alongside the RSV and, now the NRSV. How about you, SJG? How much have you used any of those translations to study or to teach?
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg --> "the NTSB (Is that what you meant by NSV? I couldn't find a reference to that translation.)" ATACdawg, I located my Bible from my confirmation classes. It says New Revised Standard Version, 1989, received 1991, so I guess I meant NRSV. The KJV doesn't have a date on it. It looks old, it was gifted in 2002 and says it was published in Cleveland, Ohio (I didn't know my hometown used to print books!). I wasn't sure if based on the Dead Sea scrolls, or new translations of ancient texts rendered my 25-30 year old copies obsolete of not (for study). Thanks for your insight. I will look out for the study versions with notes in the margins. That will help. :)
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATAC, you've explained before what church you go to. I know all about it. I just don't rebroadcast people's personal information, so I did not mention it. The huge theological error is coming from the evangelicals, but it has effected every established denomination. It is transforming faith from trust to the profession of an identity. The NIV Bible has been one of the main instruments of this. But, again, based in the newest version of NIV, I have lifted my objection to the NIV Bible. But I will fight the I am a Christian Movement for as long as I live. You might be interested to read: [view link] It is a compromise kind of a book, too conservative for me, but it speaks to many. Only now, based on this new NIV, am I willing to consider it. But I am familiar with New Jerusalem, NAB ( various versions ), RSV, and NSRV. Dominic, Not sure what NTSB means ( National Transportation Safety Board ), but there are lots and lots of bible translations now. If you have a bible which says NRSV, then that is what it is. The later copyright dates pertain to the whole package, notes, maps, pictures, etc. King James Bible is still around. Very influential in the development of English literature. In any event, you need access to multiple translations and multiple sets of notes and commentaries. Probably though you won't really need to pay money for this. If you are in any kind of study group, or attending any services, having word for word what they are using is nice. Yes, the newer translations, I believe in particular NSRV, are influenced by what has been learned from the Dead Sea Scrolls. SJG The mysteries of Isis : her worship and magick / DeTraci Regula., used to be in libraries, not now. Not in libraries [view link] Maat Magic, Neema's group, interesting pictures [view link] Her Horus / Maat Lodge [view link] [view link] Tony Orlando, Knock Three Times [view link] Sheet music, first page [view link] guitar tabs, unlikely that this is entirely correct [view link]
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Well, SJG, I guess that you're just living proof that there is a God, and that He has a sense of humor.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    @Dominic: I noticed later that my autocorrect had changed NRSV to NSTB. I noticed it the second time it tried to do it to me. Sorry about any confusion.
  • JuiceBox69
    •
    7 years ago
    Good thread
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    juicebox68 --> "King James 1611 only" ^^^ Veritas. Dominus vobiscum. :)
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    Latin Vulgate 405 only.
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Yes, and hang, draw and quarter that heretic Tyndale! Lol
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg -- > “Wow, SJG. You have me all wrong. I have no sympathy whatever for the "fundamentalists" who in truth are nothing like it. I won't even count Donald Trump as a Christian, though he claims it. Don't even get me started on Franklin Graham!” ^^^ I had to look up Franklin Graham. I saw he was the son Rev. Billy Graham, so it makes sense now. I don’t understand fundamentalists who are against science like Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, or evidence the world is older than 6000 years, or other science teachings 1920s and 1930s fundamentalists believe are anti-Biblical. Maybe those are extreme examples. But there seems to be a group that is anti-science if they believe that science contradicts the Bible scripture. ATACdawg -- > “I am a member of the Presbyterian Church USA. You probably aren't aware of it, but our denomination supports the ordination of women and LBGT pastors, elders and deacons, as long as they are celibate or in a married relationship. Pretty conservative, huh.” I hope you don’t mind me relentlessly quoting you, but I like so much of what you write! : ) That’s what I always like about my particular Lutheran church, too. We allowed for married pastors, women pastors, or LGBT ones, too. I always like the open-mindedness. They are all God’s people. So when I saw people claiming to use the word of God use the government, which has a monopoly of power, against women or LGBT community I always just sort of scratched my head in confusion because that wasn’t the church I was brought up with. We were inclusive in my congregation. But I guess some Lutherans might be more liberal (or at least not as conservative) as some other churches or groups. But with Martin Luther having been so close to Catholicism with the Protestant split, and so much of the Lutheran church service seems similar word-for-word with some of Catholic service, I had just (incorrectly assumed) that other protestant groups were even MORE liberal than my church. But when some of my friends who because “born again Christians” in the ‘90s, I saw how conservative or reactionary some other congregations could be. I had no idea. It wasn’t what they thought. Since that’s their business and not mine. But they felt that the needed to spread the word, convert everyone, and rein in any behavior thought to be immoral, and use government power, when people didn’t listen or comply. That last step(s) I disagreed with. Too, I am a little confused about Evangelicalism. I always speculated that Evangelical meant the church allowed non-Germans in the congregation – a hold over from Martin Luther and early Protestantism. Or Evangelical meant I type of outreach that encouraged the spread of the church and the word outside of Germany or to non Germans. Is this not the case? But now I see people like Michele Bachmann using Evangelical / Fundamental / Born-Again as synonyms for each other. Didn't she write the "Leap of Faith?"
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg, the issue of the legitimacy of LGBT's was settled in the early 1960's Mattachine Society staged protests and the federal ban on employment of homosexuals was lifted, in 1963. But stupid churches like yours are still coming to terms with it over 50 years later. And so for 50 years, your church, and others like it, have encouraged LGBT people to be subjected to pity and contempt from within their own families. I could tell you how stupid I think your church is, or how ridiculous I think you are. But instead, since you have again identified your church, let me ask this, does your church with its social functions, cultivate the development of bossy and neurotic women? Dominic77, With the Lutheran Synod, ELCA, Evangelical just means that they are reaching out to non-Germans, or to those not raised Lutheran. As Christianity goes, the ELCA is one of the most reasonable groups. But Evangelical in the sense of today's Evangelical Movement, means insanity. Their basic position is that you are damned unless you make public professions, their public professions. I fight these people on the ground, and in situation after situation, on a daily basis. And I was also overjoyed at being able to put one of them into San Quentin. SJG The Myth of Moses: Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio [view link]
  • WetWilly
    •
    7 years ago
    It's all fiction, in my view. The so called bible, both new and and old testaments, we're written hundreds and hundreds of years after the people supposedly lived. That's like writing down what some guy said in the 1600s, but telling stories about it for 400, not wiring any of it down for 400 frickin years, and then in the year 2,000 trying to what 810 generations think they remember.... It's all hearsay, no matter what " translation. "
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Dominic77, also, about Born Again, this is one of the most infuriating nonsense ideas around. In 1976 Jimmy Carter asked a question interviewers asked him, and he had said, that yes, he is Born Again. Later in his memoirs he explained that he "regretted having said that." He explained that he had said yes, because he though it just meant, "Do you have a relationship with God." And he went on, that where he comes from, everyone says that they are Born Again. So he said yes, as it seemed harmless. But in the decades sense he sees that it is meant as, "Do you have a *special* relationship with God." And he does not want to endorse that, so he regrets what he said. And then also, in the NAB, in its notes, they talk about this. The Greek word in John chapter 3 is 'altheron'. It could be used to mean "Born Again", which sounds like a denial system. But it could also mean "Born From Above". And so the dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus, is a play on words. Nicodemus is hearing it as Born Again, where as Jesus means Born From Above. And what Born From Above means is like in John 1,13. This NIV Bible is everywhere now: 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. Born From Above means something like the announced births, Issac, Sampson, Samuel, to name but a few. SJG
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    [view link] Extremely good book. The finalization of the Pentateuch was at least 800 years after the events occurred. The first believed documentation would have been made in the court of David, like at least 300 years after. The Prophetic Division is more reliable than are the Pentateuch or Historical Divisions. But this does not mean that it is all fiction, just that it is a very stylized kind of victor's history. One has to study the bible in order to defend themselves against it. And when reading it, you do not need to identify with the narrative voice. SJG
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    ^^^ Very true. At least one secular Satanist commented that he likes to read the Bible more than Christians. I don't know if I buy that as some Christians are daily devote and read the scriptures, daily. But perhaps he means some who hardly ever crack the Bible open. I like to be critical and challenge things. For me, I know the stories of Adam in the book of Genesis have been useful guides for being a good, strong husband in my marriage. Other than Jesus, I find Adam (and his failings) to be guide (of what not to do) for men in the Bible. (IMO).
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    I will say this, there is nothing else like the Bible. You or I could not write something to replace it. It comes via centuries of reading and interpretation, and then new events being interpreted by it. But, this does not mean that you have to take one word of it in a prescriptive manner, or that you have to identify with the narrative voice. Most of what is said in the OT is refuted at later points. Most of what is said in the NT, is also refuted, it is just not in the bible. It is in the writings of saints and mystics. SJG
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    SJG, our church has ordained gays almost since our denomination was reformed by the reunion of the PCUS and United Presbyterian Church, which had been split at the beginning of the Civil War. That process, which ended with reunion in 1983 took twenty years to accomplish and consumed both churchs' legislative agendas. Both denominations have very extensive rules on presentation to general assembly, study by individual church sessions, voting in the individual presbyteries, amendments, back to general assembly, etc, and this had to be done in two denominations! All this is slow, but it has to be this way - decently and in order. Ordination of LGBTs happened as soon as it could have after reunification. Initially, they needed to be celibate so as not to violate the "adultery" commandment. Why not married? Simply stated, the United States did not allow gay marriage. Now that that is allowed, the General Assembly, acting as quickly as it could under our Book of Order, approved the amendment, placing LGBT pastors, elders and deacons on the same footing as heterosexuals. Once again, you have shown willful ignorance of the facts. Your comment about "bossy and neurotic women" was not just idiotic, it was grossly offensive and mysoginistic. I guess that shouldn't surprise me. "But this does not mean that it is all fiction, just that it is a very stylized kind of victor's history." Wow. That's quite a statement, SJG. I guess that Israel escaping Egypt was, though they did end up wandering around the desert for years. And what about their "victories" over the Babylonians, the Persians and the Romans? Glorious indeed! The thing about the Bible that gives me faith in its message is that all of the people, some of its greatest heroes are presented with all of their character flaws. Hardly a book full of Victor's puffery. Only a fool takes the entire Bible at face value; a lot of it is like Aesop's Fables - stories that are there to reveal God's truth, not historical narrative. And I am not a fool. Now, I don't think that anything I have said in this and previous posts will change your irrational positions, or cause you to respect other people's views, stop calling them names, stop threatening their lives or health, or make concisely worded posts instead of repetitive, poor versions of War and Peace. This lack of respect for others is exactly why you have managed to alienate basically every person on this board. Being "right" all the time must be a terrible burden for you, surrounded as you are by all of us "twits". I had always thought that there must be some redeeming traits in your personality. I guess I was wrong; I won't waste any more of my time trying to enlighten you. I wish you all the luck in the world with the organization that you are building. I'm sure that a lot of people will follow you - you know how curious people are around train wrecks...
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATACdawg, clearly you are an idiot. Your church in particular is a retrograde dinosaur. It is still fighting about gay ministers with the formation of this Evagelical Covenant Order, breaking away from PC-USA, and taking churches with it. And how absurd to try to justify it by saying that they ordained gays, but required them to be celibate. Very similar to how Bob Jones University imposed one rule for blacks and another rule for whites. For the rest of the society this was solved in 1963. Your church is 50 years behind the times. Your church has been sanctioning people to treat their own family members with scorn, pity and contempt. And you are clearly too stupid to even see this. Yes, twit is about the best thing I can say of you. [view link] SJG Cardin & Thùy Hương - Cái Trâm Em Cài [view link]
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Yawn. I'd tell you to go to hell, Lloyd, but you're doing a fine job of it yourself.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    ATAC, you really are an idiot. SJG The Egyptian, 1954 [view link]
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Lol, SJG. You write reams of posts (which, by the way I quit reading when you first became abusive) containing all of your sickness and vitriol in response to my concisely worded posts. And you say I'm an idiot? Serious, little man, who really has a problem. Sticks and stones......
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Fuck Yourself ATAC. You are the one who posts drivel. SJG
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    Oh, ouch SJG. I think that you have a problem with severe constipation, or maybe depression from spending too much in the dark. Both problems are easily solved without meds - just pull your head out of your ass. At least your last two posts have been a reasonable length, so I guess that's progress. :-)
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    So who are you talking to ATAC? Are you under the misapprehension that I care at all what you think? Go convert some heathens, but just do it somewhere else. SJG
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    No, I don't think you care what I, or anyone else thinks. I'll be praying for you.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Undoubtedly you've heard, "Physician heal thyself." The corollary is, "Christians pray for yourselves." ATACdawg, go fuck yourself. SJG Panthers [view link]
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    7 years ago
    @san_jose_guy i want you to know that we are all praying for you @ATACdawg when you finish praying for the sick bastard just remember what the good book says: “and from thence they went to beer....(Num 21:16 KJV)”
  • ATACdawg
    •
    7 years ago
    SJG, I need healing, and I do pray for it. The difference is that I know it. Peace, brother.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Negative ATAC, keep you shit to yourself, don't try to dump it on me. SJG
  • DoctorPhil
    •
    7 years ago
    i'm still praying for you san_jose_guy
  • Jascoi
    •
    7 years ago
    God help us all.
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion