1 2 3 4
8/31/2009 6:31:32 AM
This guy's just religious and not very bright or curious. People do this with all sorts of stuff from history, not aggressively misinterpreting facts, just remembering something neat they heard once that's completely false.
I mean, we're just looking for cases where someone seriously distorts their perception of reality for an ideology they uphold, right? This isn't a site to just make fun of religious folk who're dopey.
8/31/2009 8:06:45 AM
Clearly a Poe. No serious RR poster would ever admit that there was a chance they were wrong.
8/31/2009 8:13:29 AM
Large Hardon Collider
Shakespeare??? I call shennanigans on this poster.
8/31/2009 8:40:16 AM
"The KJV is the original copy written and translated by Shakespeare"
"You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon"
-Chancellor Gorkon, "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"
And the KJV has been translated into Klingon. Coincidence?
'There is no such thing as coincidence in this world. There is only Hitsuzen ('Necessity')
-Yuuko the Dimensional Witch, "xxxHOLiC"
Shakespeare was actually a Klingon writing about the attempted coup of the Klingon empire, according to the book "The Klingon Hamlet", a.k.a. "The Tragedy of Khamlet, Son of the Emperor of Qo'noS"
So not only is Shakespeare a Klingon, but Jesus is actually Kahless the Unforgettable.
"taH pagh, taH be'?" ('To be, or not to be?')
8/31/2009 9:13:57 AM
"This guy's just religious and not very bright or curious."
The same could be said of those who say: "Evolution means that a monkey gave birth to a human."
Although, I do accept what you say about simply mocking someone for being a bit dopey. However, this is so far off the wall, I think it does qualify as a "darndest thing."
8/31/2009 9:29:20 AM
"I might be wrong."
Also, please, please, please do not produce offspring. Ever. If you and Bobbie Sue were to have a child I feel the concentrated stupid would explode the universe.
8/31/2009 2:29:43 PM
Yes, you might be wrong.
9/1/2009 8:12:50 AM
The Bad Guy
And fundies wonder how we could claim that we know more about the bible than they do.
The KJV was published in 1611.
King Henry died in 1547.
And Shakespeare? lol.
11/20/2009 4:02:47 PM
I don't think any fundie has ever taken a foreign language course. Anyone who has knows there's no such thing as a "perfect translation" as fundies like to claim the KJV is. Even something as simple as French, Spanish, or German to English loses something in the nuances of those languages. For example, Spanish and French have far more verb tenses than English. it gets even trickier dealing with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, which are much less like English. To say you can perfectly translate a large block of text from any of those languages to English is laughable.
11/20/2009 5:25:37 PM
Yes, you may indeed be wrong.
Can I interest you in this fine copy of The Illiad translated by Jesus?
12/1/2009 2:12:16 AM
"I might be wrong."
You might be onto something, there.
12/1/2009 4:25:53 AM
"I might be wrong"
You think, hon?
12/1/2009 4:44:00 AM
"I might be wrong."
And you are.
9/11/2010 6:31:21 AM
"At least, this is my understanding of where that notion came from."
Why not ask professors of theology at Oxford or Cambridge universities about that 'notion'. Especially what you state here:
"You're thinking about the NKJV. This is the one that was commissioned by the king that wanted a divorce I believe. I think it was one of the King Henry's. Crazy kook either got the divorces he wanted or arranged the death and/or imprisonment of his wives so he could re-marry at will. The KJV is the original copy written and translated by Shakespeare, from the ancient greek and hebrew manuscripts. If not this, he may have translated it from an even earlier english translation (which was then translated from the original greek and hebrew) when english barely resembled what it is today. It's one of these two events. This is why it's considered the most accurate, a direct english translation from the originals and the standard for today despite being a relic from the 1300-1500's where fancy poetic language was the common english of those times."
Methinks this will be their reaction:
Then, when they've calmed down and wiped the tears from their eyes, and you say:
"I might be wrong."
They'll start all over again.
Education. (as in a proper
one at an accredited academic establishment, and not
via 'hoemskuling'; especially classes in history, classical English literature, and comparative religions & RE.)
Oh, and as a starter for free, here's a little something about the real
author of the KJV Bible you fundies drool over so much:
'Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature. After his accession in England, his peaceful and scholarly attitude strikingly contrasted with the bellicose and flirtatious behaviour of Elizabeth, as indicated by the contemporary epigram Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen). Some of James's biographers conclude that Esmé Stewart (later Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr (later Earl of Somerset), and George Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) were his lovers. Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken in 2004–2008, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers'
And more food for thought:
'The personal relationships of James I of England included relationships with his male courtiers'
'James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law. His book on kingship, Basilikón Doron, (Greek for "Royal Gift") lists sodomy among those “horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive”. He also singled out sodomy in a letter to Lord Burleigh giving directives that Judges were to interpret the law broadly and were not to issue any pardons, saying that "no more colour may be left to judges to work upon their wits in that point."
However, nearly two centuries later, Jeremy Bentham, in an unpublished manuscript, denounced James as a hypocrite after his crackdown: "[James I], if he be the author of that first article of the works which bear his name, and which indeed were owned by him, reckons this practise among the few offences which no Sovereign ever ought to pardon. This must needs seem rather extraordinary to those who have a notion that a pardon in this case is what he himself, had he been a subject, might have stood in need of."'
Now you know why the KJV is referred to as the 'Queen
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing indeed. Lethal, even.
Maybe the fact that all right-wing Fundamental
ist Christian preachers use only
the QJV explains Ted Faggard?:
Suck on this, Ruptured Retards:
And furthermore, RR, ask yourselves this question:
Why has no-one on Libchrist.com been quoted on FSTDT, unlike we on Ruptured Retards?
You do the maths.
Here endeth the lesson.
9/11/2010 7:18:54 AM
1 2 3 4