[sword-devel] R/w CVS
Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:53:15 +0600
I seems that now I again need to answer... Sorry other readers of the list for
a not completely on-topic discussion, but somebody of the readers said that it
The first thing I am going to say to you: Open your Hebrew OT on a random
verse and just try to translate the paragraph of Bible you opened with all
without-vowels translations you can find. Just try the same what I tried!
Before you did this, it seems that you cannot have any hard arguments against.
Do this with the purpose to find a translation which contradicts to
with-vowels Bible and post it here! It would be an argument.
My the only really hard argument is that when you translate Bible without
vowels in a different way, you get a meaningless text; while throwing away
vowels from a random mundane book, and then random insertion of grammatically
correct vowels causes just meaningless text fragments.
Sorry, I now haven't yet written any detailed examples. It is a slow work.
> Luke 18:10-14
> Proverbs 3:34
> Well I am glad that you are better than most of us. You are actually too good
> for our projects. We are still sinners who make mistakes, but we try to love
I meant only that I was that time freed of being so bad as people in that too
bad Russian church... it isn't comparison with you. I rather humbled myself
that moment than mocked, because that moment I denied even false belief in my
own "faith-source" in my own feelings. I understood that moment that I do too
many mistakes. (Previously I didn't understand that I am bad but thought that
I was a "normally good" Christian.) So, more of reverse about your Bible
quotes for me that moment.
Please no more pure valuing personalities of each other (even with quotes from
Bible) instead of the questions related to the deal.
> > I also state that keeping
> > translating Bible only accordingly masoretic vowels is from devil.
> Ok. Then I am probably of the devil as well, no?
Every of us has something from devil in our flesh! I really consider your
unbelieving to this concept being caused by devil, but this does not imply
that you would be unsaved nor that you are bad (worse that I) in other parts
of the ministry.
> > It is a teaching of Holy Spirit!
> That is always a thing you can say to justify whatever teaching you want to
> spread. Big evil things were caused by this in church history.
Surely these my words are not a proof, but only a proclamation. Don't justify
proclamations for not being proofs.
> > BTW about NT. Even preserving all the vowels it can be translated
> > differently and we get such things as a senseful text about stars in
> > cosmos...
> Ah. How would that work?
Do you mean what is the benefit from knowing such prophecies? It is not short
to explain and I even have reasons to not tell about anything. (I can tell now
that I see the benefit of these.) The only what matters here is that if it is
really in Bible, then it is surely useful and should be studied, because the
Author of Bible is a good writer. So the question about whether it is useful
should be replaced by only the question whether it is true.
> > What is the source of the supposed forking? Martin, stop here and guess the
> > answer before reading further. In this I am only a prophet which predicted
> > the separation in a future. *You* are the man accomplished the prophecy.
> > Yes, I can deny the splitting but only by one way, i.e. by stopping my
> > work. Again the analogy with Luther which was excommunicated because of
> > writing religious information as I am doing now and rejected to deny, but
> > he haven't separated himself.
> Come on! This is obvious. You are hiding behind shadow arguments.
Clearly: I decided (as I deem by a command of God) to write some software. Is
it a blame? I decided to use Sword to simplify my work. Is it a blame? Then if
I will place the written software somewhere in the Net, is it a blame? I have
only two choices if somebody will not allow to incorporate the needed things
into his project: to create a separate project or to not to publish the
software at all. IMO, not publishing at all is completely unacceptable as it
would violate a Lord's command (exactly as with Martin Luther's church: the
only choose whether to preach separately or not to preach at all).
Now you in your subconscious compare the variants of forking and of
incorporating. It is meaningless about BibleTime as you don't allow
incorporating. If I would the choose whether to fork or to incorporate, I
would certainly choose to incorporate and otherwise would be bad. But I do not
have the choice. You sue me for not choosing incorporating despite I don't
have this choice.
Also you sue my religious view. Please sue my religious opinions and my
methods of work separately, don't mix these. I say this because it is not
clear in some of your statements what you sue the first or the second (exactly
as in mundane court, it may be needed to sue two parts of a question
Well, the life may be will go in an other way and may be will be no fork of
BibleTime, who know what may happen in that future.
> Because if we don't, we are from the devil, right? And that is why you want to
> incorporate your software and data into our distributions. I see.
IMO, from devil is the cause of missing reading Hebrew Bible with all the
sense. I haven't said that you are from devil.
I just don't understand what you see. Why I would want to incorporate my
writings namely into a devil's project (as you by some reason referred it)? I
don't have such the desire! Reversely I want to work with the best Bible study
project I can find.
> You are right. And we need to get rid of being under your control. Sword is
> not an open "market of possibilities" for religous theories.
About which kind of control you say? I suppose you are about controlling by
fear of forking, and you are going to cause me to fork with the purpose of
your going out from the control. Such fear with silly "protection" which
reversely may cause what you afraid is really from Diabol. Get rid from the
control of fear immediately!
Opening market causes controlling by an external entity, you say. It may be so
only for a weak market. Now you confessed that you market is weak in
something. The stronger it is the better.
> > You haven't *proove* that the concept is false!
> Do I have to prove that a concept that was accepted and trustworthy over a
> period of hundreds of years is true? Or do you have to prove (I mean in a
> scientific sense, not just by saying: It comes from the Holy Spirit) the
> concept you introduced, which is rejected by the whole world of scientific
It is a very weak argument. As a counterexample it was accepted during hunders of years that Earth is flat.
Exactly, I am going to prove this concept with scientific method. I write a tool which am going to use among other to prove. Please when I will write it, try to use it to disprove.
Oh, you against a "scientific" theory, well. But why you are against are tool for checking its trueness?
Did you said the word "world" intentionally to cause me to "psycholgically protect"? Yes, I consider this namely as a science influenced by the mundane World (not completely broken by the World as the Darwin's theory of evolution of life, but influenced).
Any reference to any authority except of Bible is void for me.
P.S. Our letters became long. Let us try to shorten these and even eliminate at all unneeded discussions.
Victor Porton (email@example.com)