Slashdot Mirror

Bible translators routinely enforce copyright in their translations. This is why the World English Bible (WEB) project exists, to produce a revision of the pre-1923 ASV into contemporary English and license it under CC0.

I am not a lawyer, but have done some research into the matter. Each translation of the Bible (or other ancient manuscripts) can be copyrighted by the translator. Additionally, each new edition can copyright certain non-textual changes (such as headers, footers, page layout, etc) as well as textual changes (correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation). The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is in the public domain, but the LdS Church (under the name Intellectual Reserves, if I remember correctly) has a copyright of the current (2013) edition.

If that were the case, numerous people would be able to claim copyright on all biblical manuscripts

Bible translators routinely enforce copyright in their translations. This is why the World English Bible (WEB) project exists, to produce a revision of the pre-1923 ASV into contemporary English and license it under CC0.

Even though the Bible never actually claims to be the word of God (in fact, it never claims to be true or accurate either)

Well, what does the Bible say on the subject?

Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,

II Timothy 3:16 (WEB)

Circular reasoning? yes. But it is all three of those things, right there in the text.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There are giants in our day. Not really the stuff of conspiracy theories. It certainly doesn't say in that passage of the bible or any other that the giants bred with the son of man, nor the daughters for that matter. As for the sons of God in that verse, wouldn't that mean the followers of God? You could interpret it as aliens, but then what of Occam's razor?

Yes, I modded you down, and icebike too. Not because I "disagree", but because both your posts are patently false. It doesn't take a bible scholar to search the web.

Could be from Bible, Matthew 12:25 (e.g. http://ebible.org/web/Matthew.htm#C12V25)

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

I for one think the "If an omnipotent, loving God exists, why does he let bad things happen?" line of argument is a red herring.

The formal name for this argument is the Problem of Evil, and nobody has addressed it successfully.

1. God creates man.
2. Man says to God: "We don't need you, we can take care of ourselves better."
3. God replies: "So shall it be. Because I'm not a dictator, but a loving God, I'll give you a chance to prove it. Go ahead, administer yourself, without me interfering."
4. Time passes. It is apparent that humans have no ability to accomplish peace, happiness, equality, perfect health, etc. God is going to make things well, in accordance with his original purpose. When? Not long after the following signs (which are actually just a subset of all the signs told) start being visible concurrently all around the world:
   • war, famine, horrible diseases, natural catastrophes
   • hatred
   • false prophets
   • love will grow cold
   • the truth will be told to people by people who are "hated by all of the nations"
   • humans will be lovers of {self,money}, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, pretending to be godly but denying God with their actions

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

But it turned out that he was a really nice guy, and it occured to me then that judging a person on actions taken at age 13 wasn't very fair of me; he'd grown a lot since then. He appologized for the way he'd acted.

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that "sensitivity [is] an extremely worthwhile lesson" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Listen, you smashed body of a wretched animal. I suspect it wasn't meant as a compliment.

Furthermore, your grandstanding assertion that this is "one of the best [you]'ve ever had the honor of receiving" indicates to anyone with the barest grasp of Collaborative Discussion Theory that you've never uttered a word of substance. To anyone. I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drug Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.

We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

I weep for the future if you think a random blast of vulgarity is a "raving troll". Patriots question the "Patriot" act and Ashcroft says they aid terrorists, Maddox opens his mouth and censorship is attempted. We live in the age of feelies and soma and a lack of Quality (Pirsig) and you are amused by self-referential parody of the hopelessness of the age? You appendage of Cthulhu. Go back to your lair; we are not ready for you yet!

Your inner thoughts as you posted your ill-advised diatribe:

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

In the full and more illuminating form, from the 'open source' World English Bible (Daniel ch. 5)...

25 This is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God has numbered your kingdom, and brought it to an end; 27 TEKEL; you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting. 28 PERES; your kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

In the passage, a hand has appeared and written this message on a wall during a royal feast; hence the origin of the phrase, the writing is on the wall.

Great quote for those big-picture technology meetings. Right up there with Well, I must defer to your greater schiolism on that point.

Common with, but not incompatible with. God knows how you think - he made you, so he should. He knows you need proof - he knew I needed proof, so he provided plenty of it.

The problem is he won't be your poodle. "Come on, good doggy, jump through the hoop" generally won't get you the reply you were hoping for - there are plenty of examples in the Gospels. Read John's Gospel one day - you can read it with "skeptical", "defensive" and "I'm NOT going to be converted by this" modes on full blast; just have a look how Jesus operated and how he responded to those treating him like a dog doing tricks. It might even give you some ideas how to handle that stupid PHB who asks you to jump through some pointless hoop that doesn't help anything but his ego.

You'll also get to see how he responded to those in genuine need, including intellectuals.

Becoming a Christian does not have to be unscientific. Scientists start with a theory and seek out evidence to support that theory. God asks you to start with a bit of trust (the theory) then piles on the evidence until you're more than satisfied. That's how it worked with me. The exact line I used was "Ok, I'll give it a try." My Christian friend didn't like that - she said I had to jump in with both feet, but I wasn't having any of that.

And here I am 18 years later, still "giving it a try." Actually the trial is long over.

The second problem is he won't give you The Ultimate Answer To Life, The Universe And Everything (which we all know to be 42 anyway). He'll give you the proof you need, but he won't give you the proof that will convince everyone around you. Being the ultimate gentleman he won't impose himself on you, or on anyone else; there is no Christian equivalent to LARTing. I have the proof I need, but I know it won't be enough to convince you or the general /. community, so I won't bother even starting on it; this is a journey you have to make yourself.

Even scientists have this problem - they post theories with experimental evidence, and have it torn to shreds by the community. Even when something has a wide following (the earth is round) there are still dissenters (the flat earth society), so if you think there's a scientific method that will prove the existence of God then you need to check your understanding of the phrase "scientific method."

... and copyright of modern translations has been controversial since it began (in 1901 with the American Standard Version, I believe). And it really puts a damper on my goreadthebible.com project, where I'd like to have multiple modern translations of the Bible available for reading without some of the doctrinal teachings found on other websites that I believe are incorrect. Unfortunately, I'm just a small fry, and can't afford whatever royalties would be needed for such a project (and they doubtless would disapprove of my intended site policy that anyone in the world be able to print or save the entire contents of the website).

I'm taking training courses in hymnwriting and intend on anything I publish being freely redistributable. My father has been a hymnwriter since the 1960s; I remember when he first explained copyright to me as a boy. It didn't seem right to me, then, and he's now changed his stance so much that he pretty much doesn't care where his hymns go. I think he decided it was more important that people actually SING his hymns than respect his copyright. I know some other great hymnists and wish they would see things the same way.

The difference between scientology and Christianity is that in scientology the originals are copyrighted, while in Christianity someone could conceivably make a new translation and own the rights to it. There are actually people called Freezoners who believe in the scientology principles but not the organization. These people are forced to purchase their religious texts from an organization they find morally repugnant, perhaps violating their religious principles. That doesn't sound right.

Sorry, but code can very well be free expression.

If I take something that is commonly available to anyone and render it in a unique or special way, is it art?

How about repurposing copyrighted or protected media into new forms? Is that art.

I may not think everything produced is art, but who am I to judge what is or is not creative expression? That is the slippery slope raised by this case.

WEB (World English Bible) translation.

It's sufficient for personal reading and study.

Any serious disputes must be taken up in the Greek manuscripts anyhow, something which the average person will read about rather than do themselves, seeing as the average person can not read ancient Greek.

All of the major translations done in the past 50 years are copyrighted.

While many are somewhat lenient in use, the copying policies are still very restrictive.

You can not, for example, make a duplicate copy of (to name a few) a NIV, RSV, NRSV, NKJ, or NASB translation.

While you csn copy older versions such as the King James 1611, or ASV (not in the UK though), the latter of which is from 1901, these translations are considered to be quite lacking in correctness of translation, and use archaic language and sentence structures.

Also copyrighted under draconian terms are the modern compiled Greek manuscripts. These are documents which are the result of applying textual criticism to various ancient manuscripts (which themselves came before copyright).

One modern translation unrestricted by copyright is the WEB (World English Bible) translation. While it is primarily an update of the previously mentioned ASV (1901), and is therefore not considered sufficiently accurate for a serious Bible scholar, it is more than sufficient for the personal study and reading.

Any serious disputes over translation must be taken up with what we can reconstruct of the original Greek manuscripts, anyhow, and so small inconsistencies or potentially less than ideal translation decisions are not really an issue for the WEB.

The verses you quoted (Luke 18:24 and 1 Timothy 6:10) teach that the love of money makes it difficult for people to prioritize spiritually, not that making money is immoral.

The verses you quoted (Luke 18:24 and 1 Timothy 6:10) teach that the love of money makes it difficult for people to prioritize spiritually, not that making money is immoral.

So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.

Jefferson did that.

Anyway, there are a few modern translations which have (among others) the goal of avoiding copyright difficulties: the World English Bible (WEB) (which I prefer) and the New English Translation (NET), for example.

--

So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.

Jefferson did that.

Anyway, there are a few modern translations which have (among others) the goal of avoiding copyright difficulties: the World English Bible (WEB) (which I prefer) and the New English Translation (NET), for example.

--

Nope...there is a project to produce a totally copyright free, modern English bible known as the World English Bible which I think you would be interested in.

As far as I know, a person could also derive a new modern translation from previous sources (such as the Gutenberg Bible, the KJ, the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims (spelling?) and not have a bit of legal trouble in doing so.