From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1696ae,97188312486d4578
X-Google-Attributes: gid1696ae,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Michael Ickes <mickes@gnn.com>
Subject: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?
Date: 1996/07/23
Message-ID: <31F4F565.513E@gnn.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170227075
references: <4sf9e7$kl7@news.jump.net> <4sm83e$jkg@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
 <dewar.837780785@schonberg> <4spj1f$prf@news.pacifier.com>
 <4spkdm$faa@solutions.solon.com> <dewar.837864318@schonberg>
 <4suk39$9h2@news.ld.centuryinter.net> <Duy39v.832@most.fw.hac.com>
 <4t1ng6$ev7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
x-gnn-newsserver-posting-date: 23 Jul 1996 12:53:45 GMT
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: GNN
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.dos.programmer,comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-07-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> 
> smosha@most.fw.hac.com (Stephen M O'Shaughnessy) writes:
> 
> >In article <4suk39$9h2@news.ld.centuryinter.net>, steidl@centuryinter.net says...
> >Most people believe the Bible to be the in-errant word of God.
> 
> Quantifying over the whole world, this statement is false.
> 
> For those people who *do* believe it, the agreed definition of
> inerrancy applies *solely* to the original text in the original languages;
> every copy, every translation, and every interpretation is corrigible.
> 
> >For a real eye opener read two
> >versions side by side, say the King James and the Living Bible.
> 
> (a) The Authorised Version came out in 1611.  That's a long time ago,
>     and English has changed quite a lot.
> (b) The Living Bible IS NOT A TRANSLATION!  It is openly and unashamedly
>     a *paraphrase*.
> 
> For a fairer comparison, consider the current Jewish Publication Society
> translation of the Tanach, and a really professional Christian translation
> such as The Revised English Bible or the International Version.  Despite
> being produced by disjoint committees with radically different
> theological biases; some of the sentences are word for word identical.
> 
> I think that what this shows is that it *is* possible to do a very good
> job of translating between languages in two unrelated families 2500+
> years apart in dramatically different cultures *if* you take hundreds of
> scholars, hundreds of years, and build up a "translation technology",
> and libraries full of information about the cultural background.
> 
> --
> Fifty years of programming language research, and we end up with C++ ???
> Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.

 Should'nt this post go in alt.religious.stuff..................?