Free Republic

GOOD!

Ship the homeless to the communities where the homeless activists live.

The 72 scholars translated only the chumash. the rest of the bible was translated later on by different people of varying scholarship . The mistranslation of alma as virgin was not in the chumash but in Isaiah and thus not part of the original Septuagint, hence never made it into the Jewish canon which adhered to the original Hebrew. Greek translation good and bad were for the pagans.

"Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more"

this too is obvious and I'm suprised no one commented on it . reminds me of an episode of "welcome back Kotter" when Kotter is out sick and the sweathogs make mincemeat of one substitute after another until the next one was a 6' 5" black man. the sweathogs quickly and politely ran to their seats.

First there is no such thing as " bethula" . Perhaps if the medieval English had hired Jews that knew Hebrew , that perversion of Hebrew would not occur. There is no "th" in Hebrew. The letter TAV can be pronounced if tit is in the middle of a word as "ess" or "tee" but never "th". The correct tranliteraion of "virgin" in Hebrew is betula or besula NEVER bethula. I often imagine how medieval Englishmen would have translated the kama sutra-probably just as poorly.
Next, the famous mistranslation of alma as virgin did not occur in the Septuagint. That translation done by 72 Jewish scholars was of the first five books-Beresheet-Devarim. The remainder of the Jewish bible was translated later by different people of varying scholarship. Of course since Jews adhere to the original Hebrew, that error never became part of the Jewish teaching. Furhtermore since that error predated the KJV , the KJV can't be totally faulted for repearing an error. Of course they were partly guilty for not knowing the original source. A college prof. once told my class that the Catholic Church now admits the error ,but states that Jesus was virgin born anyway, thus making the issue moot.
As to a virgin birth proving to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah it would do no such thing either way. The original Jewish followers (and this is where Dan Brown got it right) did not believe in the concept as it is totally alien to Judaism. They believed that the Messiah was all human and born of a Jewish father( he had to be to be a blood descendant of King David) . The virgin birth concept was borrowed from the Greco-Romans-Hercules, Dionysis, Achiles and added at a later date.
However it doesn't make a difference. If Jesus's original Jewish followers knew him, believed in him, felt he was the Messiah and knew the original meaning of Messiah - whether or not he was virgin born has no bearing on whether he was the messiah.

Question for Lawrence Summers?

The only talent needed for female rock stars is looks.
Many don't play instruments, lip-synch and very few write their own songs.
Men on the other hand can be hideous (Keith and Mick), they write their own songs(almost all bands performers), play their own music and sing live no matter how bad they sing-think Dylan.

that is certainly the truth.
by the way does Cher lip-synch also?

do you mean yavneh?

everything you say is true when compared to modern GENTILE Bibles.
Forgetting the relative lack of Hebrew scholarship then and now among the Gentile translators, the Bibles Used among the Christian world at that time were Latin translations of the Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture (OT). While the Septuagint was very accurate , that was only the first five books . the rest was not a very good translation -hence you get alma being mistranslated as virgin.
Perhaps if Jimmy Boy imported some real Hebraic scholars the KJV would be both accurate and aesthetic.

The problem with the KJV is that it was , while very aesthetic, was a third rate translation. I suppose that if the Jews had not been expelled from England during the Crusades, there could have been some authentic Old Testament, Hebrew scholars in England that could have made the KJV both aesthetic and accurate( at least the OT).

there is nothing wrong with using modenr english to correctly translate the Bible, however to mis-translate is wrong. The original Hebrew says G-d created man . Hebrew is like the romance languages and has masculine and feminine forms of nouns. If feminists don't like what it says too bad. The Bible is not the supreme court- things cannot be "reinterpreted" for expendiency. there are absolutes.
For a good Translation of the original Hebrew scriptures go to an Orthodox Jewish bookstore. The problem will be finding an authentic translation of the Greek New teatament the way things are going.

having visited Israel for the first time in 1983, I noticed all the homes had solar waterheating( including the poorest homes). yet whenever I am in california (similar climate as Israel) I see almost none. I have never understood why.

JERUSALEM IS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF KING DAVID

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF KING SOLOMAN

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF KING JOSIAH

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF THE MACCABEES

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF KING HEROD

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF JESUS

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF BAR KOCHBA

IT WAS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF THE PATRIARCH

IT IS THE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT THE TIME OF PM SHARON

IT WIIL ALWAYS BE SOLE ETERNAL CAPITAL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

since Canada is part of the commonwealth I feel the words of Britains greatest PM is in order
"Yes, I am a Jew," he explained not over-subtly to a politician who had attacked him on that account, "and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."

"We must abolish any system of redistribution, but the social security ponzi scheme is especially egregious. "

If we had an ethical government and populace this could be done, however there are too many single issue voters that are on the top of the Ponzi scheme enjoying its benefits.
Unless the population or govt. takes a stand against the elderly using the treasury as an ATM we are screwed.

1.BECAUSE ELDERLY VOTE IN HUGE NUMBERS
2.ELDERLY HAVE RECEIVED FAR MORE THAN THEY PUT IN AND PAID MUCH LOWER FICA (IT STARTED AT 1%) THAN US
3. MOST ELDERLY DON'T CARE THAT THEY ARE RIPPING US OFF AND WANT IT CONTINUED.

1.BECAUSE ELDERLY VOTE IN HUGE NUMBERS
2.ELDERLY HAVE RECEIVED FAR MORE THAN THEY PUT IN AND PAID MUCH LOWER FICA (IT STARTED AT 1%) THAN US
3. MOST ELDERLY DON'T CARE THAT THEY ARE RIPPING US OFF AND WANT IT CONTINUED.

yesher koach

Young people don't vote . if they did SS would have been reformed into a fair , ethical program. but they don't .
Elderly vote and
1. know they are benefiting from this Ponzi scheme. probably ONLY A MINORITY WOULD WANT TO SAVE THE SYSTEM TO help their kids. Most enjoy being the wealthiest group in the nation and then getting undeserved handout on top of that- ( I mean undeserved as money greater than they put in. they deserve that)
2. They also know pandering whore politicians -usually dems will buy their vote by ever increasing the benefits that are already in excess.
Call me cynical , but educating a demographic that enjoys a free lunch wont help. they already know they are stealing from the next generation.

non-orthodox rabbis are eligible to take the Israeli license exam, but since non-orthodox rabbis have less Torah knowledge than high school yeshiva students they can not pass.

I think current and soon-to-be recipients of Social Security should share in the burden of averting disaster.

the current especially since they paid less than the soon to be recipients.
People should not receive more than they put in. since I have been paying 12% my entire career, while current recipients paid a far lower amount, and have been receiving more than they put in it is they not us that should make the sacrifice.
we are already making the sacrifice of paying an ever increasing FICA that we will not get back.
once a person has received what they put in the check should stop.