HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/11/18/arts.bible.translation.reut/index.html)

Is the Bible being re-written now?

Getting the Bible back to its roots
New Pentateuch translation from original Hebrew meanings

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- It is considered the most magisterial opening in English literature: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

But now a major revisionist translation of the Bible would have the cosmos begin with a more conversational clause: "When God began to create heaven and earth ... "

And where the King James translation of Genesis had the earth begin "without form and void," the new translation of the Hebrew Bible says that the earth was "welter and waste."

Biblical scholar Robert Alter's major new English translation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible -- alternately called the Five Books of Moses, the Torah or Pentateuch -- has some critics manning the barricades while others are applauding his efforts to return the work to its original Hebrew meanings and majestic repetitions.

A professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Alter says since he has never found a biblical translation that he liked or could recommend to his comparative literature students, he decided to do his own, starting with the story of Genesis and ending with the death of Moses.

His argument is that past translations either get the Hebrew wrong or mangle the Bible's syntax or lose the power of the work or even are so up-to-the-minute that they become too conversational to be accurate or interesting.

He was also determined to get back into the book every single "and" that other translators left out, saying that part of book's majesty is built by its use of repetitions.

The 1611 King James version, perhaps the most famous book ever written by a committee, may reach poetic heights, but Alter says it is fraught with "embarrassing inaccuracies" and often substitutes Greek or Latin words and Renaissance English tonalities and rhythms for biblical ones.

'Concrete images'
"Reading through this book is a wearying, disorientating and at times revelatory experience," said noted author John Updike in a review of Alter's 1,063-page translation of "The Five Books of Moses" (Norton) for the New Yorker magazine in which he complained about page after page of footnotes that often explain obscure points.

Updike also took exception to some of the translation. For example, he is a lot happier with the King James version in which "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the water" than with Alter's version of the same sentence: "God's breath hovering over the waters."


Biblical scholar Robert Alter decided to translate the Torah himself after he couldn't find a translation that satisfied him.
But Alter, in an interview with Reuters, said he used the phrase "God's breath" rather than the "spirit of God" for a simple reason: "The Hebrew word means life's breath, a constant moving of oxygen in and out. The body-soul split of early Christianity is something not imagined in the early Hebrew."

Alter said his task was to find the English equivalents of the Hebrew. "Hebrew is filled with concrete images. For example, the King James translates the famous lines of Ecclesiastes as 'vanity of vanities ... all is vanity' but the closest word in English to the Hebrew is 'vapor, vapor, all is mere vapor.' "

Washington Post reviewer Michael Dirda said that some Bible translations are so simple-minded that Adam and Eve might as well be called Dick and Jane, but "Alter will have nothing to do with (such) dumbing-down.

"This makes reading his version of the Torah ... thrilling and constantly illuminating: After the still, small voices of so many tepid modern translations, here is a whirlwind."

Alter said he was especially pleased with restoring all the "ands" back in a passage where Abraham's servant is sent on a mission to find a wife for Isaac and encounters Rebekah:

"And she came down to the spring and filled her jug and came back up. And the servant ran toward her and said, 'Pray, let me sip a bit of water from your jug.' And she said, 'Drink, my lord,' and she hurried and tipped down her jug on one hand and let him drink. And she let him drink his fill and said, 'For your camels, too, I shall draw water until they drink their fill.' And she hurried and emptied her jug into the trough, and she ran again to the well to draw water and drew water for all his camels."

The 15 "ands" manage to build a picture of what Alter calls "the closest anyone comes in Genesis to a feat of 'Homeric' heroism" -- especially when one considers how much a camel drinks.

Alter added: "I began this translation as a kind of dubious experiment asking, 'Is there some (method) of getting Biblical Hebrew into modern English in a way that would be readable but not be too contemporary sounding and reproduce many of the stylish effects of the Hebrew?' "

Some critics think he found the way. And how.

This has been done so many times already. Pagans, Atheists and Jews want to either be Christians to destroy it and the way to do that is by the destruction of the word.

[SIZE=3]SODOMY AND THE NIV[/SIZE]
http://www.biblebelievers.com/runner.gif
The question is often asked, "Is the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) a reliable translation?" The answer depends entirely on the basic belief structure of the one replying.

It is a general consensus among the evangelical community that the NIV is an excellent rendition of what God has said to mankind. The positive answer among this group is probably brought about for two reasons: (1) the translators claimed to be evangelicals, and (2) the evangelicals endorse the modern techniques of textual criticism which were employed. Others who subscribe to the theory of textual criticism will also hold a high opinion of the NIV. From a scholarly standpoint, the NIV seems to have been accepted.

However, there are those who are comfortable with the King James Bible (KJB) and hold a totally different view about the NIV. They see many new words and concepts and are convinced that these changes not only aren't necessary, some even detract from God's Word. They believe the truth never changes and if the NIV were a true translation of the Bible, it would reflect the same thoughts and comparable words as the KJB which has been around for centuries.

Clearly, there is disagreement between the NIV and KJB supporters. While there are many minor problems, the major difficulty falls in the area of providential preservation of the Scriptures and the implications this has on how God has protected His Word and kept it accurate over the passing years. The KJB translators were fully committed to an accurate translation based on their personal convictions that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and that He had preserved it in its pure form for all generations. The texts they used were the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Texus Receptus.

On the other hand, the NIV translators held the view that the Bible had become corrupted over the centuries and they could reproduce the original wordings by various literary techniques. They discarded the work of the KJB translators and developed an eclectic text. The major discrepancies between the KJB and the NIV are due in part to the two different underlying texts, but the most radical changes stem from the foundational beliefs of the two translating committees.

The NIV committee was made up of over 100 people with various Biblical backgrounds and doctrinal beliefs. There were many who professed inerrancy, but believed the texts of the KJB were severely corrupted. Somewhere between this and the liberal view were those who professed partial inerrancy which basically means the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and practice but is in error in matters of history and science.

Then there was the extreme group who claimed to hold a high view of Scripture, but whose doctrine was either liberal (didn't believe the Bible was God's inspired Word), or was just generally confused regarding God's Word. The sad part of the whole situation is those who knew better let those with liberal leanings control the process and this resulted in a doctrinally deficient version of the Bible. This is clearly illustrated by the influence of Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and the treatment of homosexuality in the NIV.

Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a professed homosexual. This is verified by her own words in an interview in the Episcopal publication, Witness (June, 1991, pages 20-23). The interviewer, Sue Pierce, asked the question, "Why was it important to both of you to come out as lesbians?" Dr. Mollenkott's reply was, "My lesbianism has always been a part of me. I tried to kill myself in my teens because they told me I'd never be healed, that God had no use for people like me. I couldn't stand the thought of living a life that was useless and offensive to God. I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful."

Realizing Dr. Mollenkott's moral direction, one could expect her views to strongly affect the outcome of the NIV translation, and it does, as can be seen in the treatment of the sin of Sodom from which the term "sodomy" is derived. This word, generally used for homosexual behavior, is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as "copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal." As can be seen, sodomy implies more than homosexual behavior, but Dr. Mollenkott was not interested in the human-beast relationship, she was only concerned about justifying the same sex relationship of sodomy.

In her book, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor?, Dr. Mollenkott explains fully why she thinks the homosexual got bad press in the Bible. She presents all kinds of fanciful notions that the Old Testament Holiness Codes which forbid sodomy do not apply to the New Testament church. She explains in detail that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality as a loving relationship between two consenting adults. Therefore, she concludes, it has to be OK. Where Paul mentions homosexuality, she again says that it only applies to promiscuous homosexuality. The NIV clearly reflects her views.

The following readings compare the KJB and the NIV in several areas where sodomy or homosexual behavior is mentioned. Going over these, it is easy to see that sodomy was never considered as a viable concept in the NIV and homosexuality was presented from Dr. Mollenkott's viewpoint. The comments of Dr. Mollenkott are from her book, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? (abbreviated as ITHMN)

Genesis 19:5 - The sin of Sodom
KJB - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

NIV - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them."

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 57 - "... the Sodom story seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1) violent gang rape and (2) inhospitality to the stranger."

Leviticus 18:22 - Sodomy
KJB - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

NIV - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.

(Author's note: There is quite a degree of difference between the meaning of the words, abomination and detestable.)

Leviticus 20:13 - Sodomy
KJB - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

NIV - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Pages 110 through 121 - "Dr. Mollenkott argues that this is part of the ceremonial laws, and as such, are to be disregarded by the Christian. She places this act on the same level as wearing clothes of two different materials."

Deuteronomy 23:17 - Sodomite
KJB - There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

NIV - No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.

Judges 19:22 - Sodomy
KJB - Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

NIV - While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 57 - "Violence - forcing sexual activity upon another - is the real point to this story."

I Kings 14:24 - Sodomites
KJB - And there were sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

NIV - There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

I Kings 15:12 - Sodomites
KJB - And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

NIV - He expelled all the shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of the idols his fathers had made.

I Kings 22:46 - Sodomites
KJB - And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

NIV - He rid the land of the rest of the shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

II Kings 23:7 - Sodomites
KJB - And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

NIV - He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 59 & 60 - "Most scholars agree that in the fertility religions of Israel's neighbors, male cult prostitutes were employed for homosexual acts. The people who loved and served the God of Israel were strictly forbidden to have anything to do with such idolatry, and the Jewish men were commanded to never serve as temple prostitutes."

(Author's note: Clearly a male could be a shrine prostitute and not be a homosexual, but according to the dictionary a Sodomite is a homosexual.)

Matthew 11:24 - Judgment upon Sodom
KJB - But I say unto you, That it shall be more

tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee.

NIV - But I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

Luke 10:12 - Judgment upon Sodom
KJB - But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

NIV - I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for you.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 59-"Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the context of sexual acts, but in the contents of inhospitality." And on Page 71, she expands this thought with the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible."

Romans 1:26 & 27 - Homosexuality
KJB - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in lust one toward another; man with men working that which is unseemingly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

NIV - Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 62 - "The key thought here seems to be lust, 'unnaturalness,' and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid the acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's existence?"

I Corinthians 6:9 - Rejection of homosexual behavior
KJB - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

NIV - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

A note here to point out that this is the only place in the NIV where the word "homosexual" occurs. It is not clear from the context if this means heterosexuals who abuse homosexuals or homosexuals who abuse each other. See Dr. Mollenkott's explanation in the 1st Timothy comments following.

I Timothy 1:9 & 10
KJB - Knowing this, that the law is not made for righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for manstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

NIV - We also know that law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murders, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 67 - "Interpretations of these passages depends on two Greek words used in I Cor. 6:9 which have presented a problem for translators in the King James Version, they translated 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' In the Revised Standard Version of 1952, they were combined and rendered simply 'homosexuals,' which implied that all persons whose erotic interests were oriented to the same sex were by the very fact excluded from membership in the kingdom of God. But the original intent seems to have been to single out specific kinds of same-sex practices which were deplorable."

Jude 7 - Strange flesh
KJB - Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

NIV - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, Page 59 - "The unnatural lust" thus could, in the context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and heavenly beings

What does it say about a person who devoted days out of their life to memorize translations of quotes written by jews for jews, over 2000 years ago.

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]What does it say about a person who devoted days out of their life to memorize translations of quotes written by jews for jews, over 2000 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Maybe just a bit more than your porn producing azz, though, old porno goat.

You never answered my query about how many young White gals' lives you help ruin, smut peddler?

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]What does it say about a person who devoted days out of their life to memorize translations of quotes written by jews for jews, over 2000 years ago.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3]Days? Just because you are old and slow doesn’t mean anyone else is. I am an Aryan and it only takes me a couple of minutes to learn something. You may have to read a Jarl post over ten times to understand it or remember it you senile old geezer but it only takes me one time. Perhaps that is why a lot of these clowns make repetitious posts.

Unlike Jarl whom I have seen post the same exact post as many as 15 times in a row on various threads. Speaking of which there is no three people I know of that take more time to memorize things about the bible than Jarl, Vlad, and Draco so why are you not on their cases? They claim to expose Christians just like I did, the only exception is I wasn’t molested by a Catholic or beaten up by Christians and came from broken homes like they did when they were younger. I don’t have a hatred for Christianity like those clowns.

And for your information the bible was completed in about 95 ad so it was actually less than 2,000 years ago. You truly are senile. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Intrepid]Maybe just a bit more than your porn producing azz [color=red]Snoop? Is that you?)[/color], though, old porno goat.

You never answered my query about how many young White gals' lives you help ruin, smut peddler?[/QUOTE]

"Query"? Oh why how upper crust of you, me Lord.

Well, let me answer all your query's for you, jew yard dog.

A sight of a nude woman may be a vile act to you, you almost* jew boy, but we white men find them to be the finest form of natural beauty the world has to offer.

How could a blue eyed white man like myself destroy the lives of blue eyed women, by mounting them and procreating with them, let alone taking pictures of natures finest accomplishment?

Now of course its time to turn the question around on you. How many white people did you help drive out of california by renting en mass to wetbacks who until just weeks before lived in tar paper shacks until they knocked on the managers barred and triple dead bolt security door of one of your slums?

Oh humble servant of the jew bank that holds your commercial mortgage.

Get off that pipe, hypocrite. You sure gotta lotta Hutzpah to even hang around here while collecting money from wetbacks. Do you donate that scratch to the cause? Nope. Dont even pretend you do.

[QUOTE=sean(doc)martin][SIZE=3]Days? Just because you are old and slow doesn’t mean anyone else is. I am an Aryan and it only takes me a couple of minutes to learn something. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[size=3]So what are you? An Aryan or an Isrealite? You cant have it both ways pal.[/size]

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]
A sight of a nude woman may be a vile act to you, you almost* jew boy, but we white men find them to be the finest form of natural beauty the world has to offer.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3]I am not up holding for Intrepid and I have had my flame wars with him in the past but there is something that needs to be pointed out.

Porn sets a standard your mate cannot set thus destroying nature’s plan. About this time someone may chime in and say my woman is better looking than any model then you don’t need porn. If you are using porn with a fine Aryan female at home then there is something wrong with your mental wiring.

Porn is one of the main tools used by the Jews to exploit white women and by showing interracial porn they are able to program white women to breed with animals. Anyone involved with porn for any reason is guilty of treason and should be dealt with in a manner of a race traitor.

There is no such thing as white only porn either, so that is not an excuse. No matter if it was intended for white men only it will fall into the hands of a Jew or groid eventually. Do you really think it is good to profit from images of white women being lusted over by Jews and groids? This treason to a high level and those that are guilty of it for any reason are not fit for the white race. And I am not saying this because of Christianity either. Sexual deviants have no value in any type of society whatsoever. [/SIZE]


How could a blue eyed white man like myself destroy the lives of blue eyed women, by mounting them and procreating with them, let alone taking pictures of natures finest accomplishment?
[SIZE=3]The same way a host of other white villains do, and the same way Hugh Hefner takes pornographic pictures to exploit white women for any groid with six fifty in his hand.

I am not a prude there is nothing more beautiful than a white woman, and absolutely nothing more beautiful than a naked white woman in the proper setting sexual relations between a white husband and white wife as nature intended . [/SIZE]

Now of course its time to turn the question around on you. How many white people did you help drive out of california by renting en mass to wetbacks who until just weeks before lived in tar paper shacks until they knocked on the managers barred and triple dead bolt security door of one of your slums?
[SIZE=3]These people will be living in an area regardless, and while you whine over laws that force whites to rent to minorities in the same breath you will cry when a white who owns a home is forced to do so.

Now the fact is someone is going to have to profit from them and they will be there regardless even to the point of the government seizing homes or building homes for them.


Do you own more than one home? Do you even own your own home? If you rent you are homeless and only one missed rent day from being out on the streets. [/SIZE]

collecting money from wetbacks. Do you donate that scratch to the cause? Nope. Dont even pretend you do.

[SIZE=3]Would you rather a Jew get the money and donate half of the profits to the SPLC or a white man get the money and profit from these mongrels for once?

They have profited from us long enough and it is about time we turn the tables on them.

I would gladly go to court with the SPLC and take a settlement check in the amount of millions just as they have done to our racist organizations and donate some serious cash to the next David Duke political campaign. We can't beat the Jews as long as we refuse to take money from their pockets and put it in ours. This is common sense something senile old goats don't have. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]"
How could a blue eyed white man like myself destroy the lives of blue eyed women, by mounting them and procreating with them, let alone taking pictures of natures finest accomplishment?
.[/QUOTE]



You sound just like some lying smooth talking kike trying to justify your porno-pushing past. So you see nothing wrong with peddling your filth? The Jew would be so proud of you, sir. As you have helped them out greatly by helping them to spread their immorality.

[QUOTE=Old White Goat][size=3]So what are you? An Aryan or an Isrealite? You cant have it both ways pal.[/size][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3]
An Aryan I don't recall claiming to be anything else. I have never tried to have it both ways and I am not your pal, friend or buddy. I am not particularity fond of even typing to a degenerate senile old pornographer that has helped exploit white women to destroy the white race. Why do you ask?


BTW
Porn has no value and leads to all sorts of sexual degeneracy such as rape. Groids are to stupid to hold normal thoughts and see all those white women you have photographed and it sets their animal instincts into over drive. The next thing you know they have some beautiful Aryan woman down in the alley.

You can't name one benefit porn has produced to society.


[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=sean(doc)martin][SIZE=3]
You can't name one benefit porn has produced to society.
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]


What do you mean? Porn has lots of benefits mostly for Jews and dirty old men like Old White Goat :p


I certainly can't wait to hear what kinds of benefits he is going to try to come up with. That is, if he even answers the question.

Well, was OWG involved in tasteful, artsy nudes? Or was it flat out hardcore porn? I don't see anything wrong with the tasteful stuff...white women are the most beautiful in the world. Hell, even Hitler had his guest rooms stocked with it (along with a Bible and a copy of Mein Kampf...something for everyone!...I read it about his home in an OLD issue of Better Homes & Gardens...I think). But, the hardcore stuff is completely Jewish and just trivializes everything about the female form and sex. I suppose I am abit of a prude when it comes to that, but hell, the softer porn is a hell of a lot more erotic to me than close-ups of penetration. Fucking sick.

And OWG, you shouldn't call it "procreating". Its called fucking in front of a camera for money. Glorified whores. And nope, I'm not a Christian.

[QUOTE=sean(doc)martin][SIZE=3]
An Aryan I don't recall claiming to be anything else. I have never tried to have it both ways and I am not your pal, friend or buddy. I am not particularity fond of even typing to a degenerate senile old pornographer that has helped exploit white women to destroy the white race. Why do you ask?


BTW
Porn has no value and leads to all sorts of sexual degeneracy such as rape. Groids are to stupid to hold normal thoughts and see all those white women you have photographed and it sets their animal instincts into over drive. The next thing you know they have some beautiful Aryan woman down in the alley.

You can't name one benefit porn has produced to society.


[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]"Query"? Oh why how upper crust of you, me Lord.

Well, let me answer all your query's for you, jew yard dog.

A sight of a nude woman may be a vile act to you, you almost* jew boy, but we white men find them to be the finest form of natural beauty the world has to offer.

How could a blue eyed white man like myself destroy the lives of blue eyed women, by mounting them and procreating with them, let alone taking pictures of natures finest accomplishment?

Now of course its time to turn the question around on you. How many white people did you help drive out of california by renting en mass to wetbacks who until just weeks before lived in tar paper shacks until they knocked on the managers barred and triple dead bolt security door of one of your slums?

Oh humble servant of the jew bank that holds your commercial mortgage.

Get off that pipe, hypocrite. You sure gotta lotta Hutzpah to even hang around here while collecting money from wetbacks. Do you donate that scratch to the cause? Nope. Dont even pretend you do.[/QUOTE]

My, my, Leader of the '60s Filth Revolution, I see your immoral, crusty Jewish hide is currently being smacked around quite well. Let's clear two of your erroneous fabrications up:

- I realize you're not quite as clever as other members of your tribe, so I won't attempt to explain rudimentary banking principles to you. Listen carefully, WN-EHC Charter member: I personally own no property other than my own home. Is that simple enough for you, you ignorant sloth.

Regarding this tripe:

How could a blue eyed white man like myself destroy the lives of blue eyed women, by mounting them and procreating with them, let alone taking pictures of natures finest accomplishment?

No, sorry, Mr. Smut King, there's a distinction between a man & woman in a healthy sexual relationship & the physical, emotional & psychological abuse you put White women through for over a decade. You'll pay, mark my words, you'll pay.

[QUOTE=SheerTerror]Well, was OWG involved in tasteful, artsy nudes? Or was it flat out hardcore porn? I don't see anything wrong with the tasteful stuff...white women are the most beautiful in the world. Hell, even Hitler had his guest rooms stocked with it (along with a Bible and a copy of Mein Kampf...something for everyone!...I read it about his home in an OLD issue of Better Homes & Gardens...I think). But, the hardcore stuff is completely Jewish and just trivializes everything about the female form and sex. I suppose I am abit of a prude when it comes to that, but hell, the softer porn is a hell of a lot more erotic to me than close-ups of penetration. Fucking sick.

And OWG, you shouldn't call it "procreating". Its called fucking in front of a camera for money. Glorified whores. And nope, I'm not a Christian.[/QUOTE]

OWG was an innovator in the industry's early years, so to speak. You might say he was the Gonzo King of his day, at least in relative terms.


Originally Posted by Old White Goat
Ive got a couple of more sons that are photographers too, you see during the mid '50s to '64 when I got busted by vice, I shot tons of stag films and made lotsa the green stuff. So, being the lover of female beauty that I am, I guided them to get into the modeling business for easy access to high quality women that the business affords to those who are connected.

[QUOTE=SheerTerror]

And OWG, you shouldn't call it "procreating". Its called fucking in front of a camera for money. Glorified whores. And nope, I'm not a Christian.[/QUOTE]


A made glamour films, films for stag party's, etc. Being a photographer got me so much tail, it was unbelievable. Many white kids were born as a result, we didnt have no pill back then.

Back then you could not sell a film of people having sex, that was way over the line for commerce. Rest assured I made my share of hardcore films for my own historical documentation that I never made available for public sale.

On a side note porn was never invented by jews. Jews are the ugliest things on earth, to even take their cloths of made them sick, its in their bible for corn sake.

Jews (as with everything), stole the idea and drove it to the extreme edge, like any other business they take over and dominate.

Dont blame the medium, blame the jew.

Ahhhhh. I see. We really do have all kindsa people posting here, eh? :D

[QUOTE=Intrepid]OWG was an innovator in the industry's early years, so to speak. You might say he was the Gonzo King of his day, at least in relative terms.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying very carefully to avoid taking sides here, cuz I have no problems with you or Intrepid, and I'd kinda like to keep it that way.

Anyways, I guess it wasn't so bad. I do realize that porn hasn't always been so fucking sleazy. Everything in general seemed to be a lot more tasteful back then (even the porn), and I really wish I could've grown up then instead of the fuckin 80's...*shudder*. I don't think women should hide what they were born with, but there is something to be said for modesty. Porn kinda cheapens the whole sex thing, which is my prob with it.

Anyways, to each his own...

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]A made glamour films, films for stag party's, etc. Being a photographer got me so much tail, it was unbelievable. Many white kids were born as a result, we didnt have no pill back then.

Back then you could not sell a film of people having sex, that was way over the line for commerce. Rest assured I made my share of hardcore films for my own historical documentation that I never made available for public sale.

On a side note porn was never invented by jews. Jews are the ugliest things on earth, to even take their cloths of made them sick, its in their bible for corn sake.

Jews (as with everything), stole the idea and drove it to the extreme edge, like any other business they take over and dominate.

Dont blame the medium, blame the jew.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SheerTerror]Ahhhhh. I see. We really do have all kindsa people posting here, eh? :D[/QUOTE]


Indeed we do.

The person you're replying to (Intrepid) rents to (as he gleefully admits) "hundreds" of illegal wetbacks in El Monte, Ca.

And he also admits to patronizing the wetbacks cut rate labor rates by picking them up in the morning on the street corner and paying them in untaxable untracable cash....

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]
On a side note porn was never invented by jews. Jews are the ugliest things on earth, to even take their cloths of made them sick, its in their bible for corn sake.

Jews (as with everything), stole the idea and drove it to the extreme edge, like any other business they take over and dominate.

Dont blame the medium, blame the jew.[/QUOTE]


You're right, as long as people had video equipment, there has been "porn". Someone may want to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that the first sex on video was done sometime in the 1930's.

Nowadays though, the porn industry credits read like a Tel Aviv phonebook....


...

I see that this thread has gone off-topic.

I’ll try to get it back on track by telling you something that you didn’t know about Bible translations.....specifically The King James version.

It was king James of England who commissioned the Holy Bible to be translated out of the original tongues. The newly translated Bible was made available to the public in the year 1611.

King James wanted the job completed quickly, therefore he assigned three pairs of well known intellectual writers to do the translation in three cities. London, Oxford and Cambridge. The work was started in early in 1610 and completed in December 1610.

These translators were given strict orders, under penalty of death, not to divulge that they were the translators or to acknowledge or sign their work in any way.

All of the glory was to go to the king for this monumental achievement

The king was satisfied with the translation, but unbeknownst to him, one of the translators did indeed let the world know that he had a hand in the translation.

The man was William Shakespeare.

This is how he did it.

Shakespeare was born April 23rd 1564

The work of the translation was started and completed in 1610 when Shakespeare was 46 years old and finally published in 1611.

1610 work performed
- 1564 Shakespeare’s birth-year
______
46 Shakespeare’s age at completion of work


Go the the 46th Psalm.

Then count 46 words...........the word “shake” appears.

Then go to the end of the psalm and count 46 words backwards......the word “spear” appears

Now, for those of you who are familiar with any of Shakespeare’s other work, you should plainly be able to see his hand in most of the other Psalms, especially the 23rd.

Re: Brutus

Actually I already knew that. It is a common urban legend and we discussed the possibility in college. But it is not probable that one of the translators was Shakespeare. I forget all the evidence (as this was 3 years ago) but it was proved absolutely that he didn’t have a hand in it.

RE: Doc

Actually I already knew that. It is a common urban legend and we discussed the possibility in college. But it is not probable that one of the translators was Shakespeare. I forget all the evidence (as this was 3 years ago) but it was proved absolutely that he didn’t have a hand in it.

Not too many people are aware of the coincidence but many will cite the evidence of earlier Bibles containing the same coincidence. However that evidence was contrived and found to be false.

Historical texts do indeed give the nod to Shakespeare as one of the translators of the three teams of two who were ultimately in charge of forty seven translation scribes.
(I’ll try to dig-up the reference material for you, the internet has allot of hogwash on the topic)

It is my personal opinion that recently (within the past 10-20) years there have been efforts to discredit Shakespeare’s contributions to the KJV. And I am at a lose to explain why various people don’t want it to be true..........This is one, that I won’t blame on the jew, but I might be wrong there.

When I was first exposed to this information by a personal friend and Brigadier General of the Salvation Army back around 1975........He presented authoritative sources and copies of correspondence of British Lords and Governors from the 1600s and 1700s to support the case.

RE: DR ANTICHRIST

Just a gentle reminder, that one well versed in the Bible, doesn’t necessarily make them a Christian.

In any case...................

It is a strange co-incidence that Sir Francis Bacon’s name keeps popping-up.

He is claimed by the Freemasons and Rosicrucians as one of their own. And both organizations have a fetish for numerology, the occult and cabalism.

Some have claimed that the renaissance men, Shakespeare and Bacon, were actually one in the same.