Subject | Re: OT:Christianity |
From | James Bell |
Date | 2002-05-01 22:19 (2002-05-01 16:19) |
Message-ID | <aapik7$ms7$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien |
Follows | AC |
Followups | Pradera (2m) Graeme (1h & 30m) > James Bell AC (1h & 38m) > James Bell Sylver (2h & 25m) > James Bell |
ACI don't believe literal translations are any more dangerous than religious intolerance. Your post has made that much crystal clear to me.
On Wed, 1 May 2002 15:17:33 -0400, "James Bell" <jamesb@naxs.com> wrote:James BellAC
"AC" <spam@nospam.com>wrote in message news:3ccec08d.197127834@news2.randori.com...ACJames Bell
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 04:18:47 -0400, Flame of the West <jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com>wrote:Flame of the WestAC
David Sulger wrote:David SulgerFlame of the West
Not exactly. Jehovah's Witnesses are a result of American religious freedom. Over the last century, a lot of ultra-conservative evangelical Christian groups have popped up all over the country in the wake of various religious revivals. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more well-known sects, probably because of their damn annoying proselytization practices.
I heard that they believe that only 144,000 people would be saved. Of course, there are more JW's than that...
No, they believe that only 144000 will go to heaven. The rest will live forever on earth. Therein lies the danger of literal translations of Revelations.
How's that dangerous?
Have you met any JWs. A large part of my family are JWs, and believe me, literal translations of Revelations are dangerous.