Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   braindead08 said, 3 months ago

   It’s okay if a Republican does it.
2. 

   mikefive said, 3 months ago

   Is this like the Menendez thing?
3. 

   leaman100 said, 3 months ago

   Jesus was not around when Stephen was stoned. He quoted that line when a woman caught in the act of adultery was brought to him. But, I do understand the joke. Catholics believe Mary was without sin for those of you who don’t understand.
4. 

   Clark Kent said, 3 months ago

   Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
   how does your garden (of gethsemany) grow?
   With fruits and vegetables for the last supper.
   Earlier in the day they had the last brunch, they all had Denver omelets with hash browns and decaf coffee.
5. 

   Nos Nevets said, 3 months ago

   Greg Crosby wrote an excellent article about media complicity in ignoring Liberal, but hyperventilating over bad behavior, depending on whether they share political views with the object of their reporting / non-reporting.
6. 

   Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago

   He got stoned and he missed it….
7. 

   Omnius said, 3 months ago

   Hopefully the pathetically immoral and stupid voters of that district in corrupt south carolina will send adulterer mark sanford back hiking the Appalachian Trail.
8. 

   Rockngolfer said, 3 months ago

   I hope Stephen Colbert’s sister wins.
   Elizabeth Colbert-Busch
9. 

   lonecat said, 3 months ago

   It should be “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. If you take out the relative clause the grammar becomes clear: “Let him…cast the first stone.” You wouldn’t say “Let he cast the first stone.”
10. 

    I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

    There is a book out called “Misquoting Jesus”. I forget the name of its author. I saw a number of interviews with him as he was on his plug-my-book tour of TV shows. He was a born-again christian who was so enthusiastic about his faith that he decided to find the oldest known versions of the bible to be able to read them and know for himself what they said. He even learned ancient Greek so that he could read them himself, rather than rely on a translation from someone else.

    He found that many things that we take for granted in the bible were not in those older copies. Many of these parables were hand-written into margins obviously later than the manuscripts were originally written. One of those had to do with casting the first stone.

    So, although the story is a really good one, it was not recorded in the earliest versions of the bible. Did it really happen? Does it matter? We report; you decide.
11. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    @lonecat

    ^ So was him allowed to cast it?
12. 

    lonecat said, 3 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    Let him who is without grammatical error make the first correction.
13. 

    californicated1 said, 3 months ago

    @I Play One On TV

    One of the constant failings of any translation of anything is that the translation is done with the viewpoint, education and exprience of the translator and that what they translate basically re-makes the original work in their own image—sort of like Salvador Dali giving his rendition of what Michelangelo’s David would look like if Dali did it.
    …
    Translations should always be looked on more as a “work of art” because not every translation is going to sound right, either to the person reading the translation or the person who reads, thinks, speaks and understands in the original language that the original work was created or published.
    …
    And one of the constant failings in translation and even transliteration has always been The Bible, along with any other religious text out there, because they have been out there for so long and all that time has given several people, or in some cases even several hundreds or several thousands of people, the opportunity to translate the work and re-cast it in their own image and paradigm, thinking that this translation is better than the previous ones, but as the passage of time has shown, languages and even idioms change to the point that what may have been translated back in the days when King James commissioned the undertaking does not mean quite the same nowadays, but yet there are still people out there who cling to the translation as the fundamental and final word, faithlessly and even without question, because the translation, no matter how faulty and flawed these days, was that person’s foundation for their faith and an underpinning for how they live the rest of their lives, to put it in existential terms and if that translation is flawed—like the mistranslation of “the sea of reeds” to “the Reed Sea” and later on “the Red Sea”—can lead to other questions about what they believe in and why they believe it, which may be something that the believer may not be quite ready to face.
14. 

    I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

    @californicated1

    A good example is to look at the paintings of Moses done by Michaelangelo. His bible was written in Aramaic, and there are two translations for the appearance of Moses after he received the 10 Commandments. One is that he had a glow. The other is that he had horns. Guess which one Michaelangelo read…..
15. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    @Mr. King

    ^ Was Joseph a virgin, too?
16. Load the rest of the comments (18).