Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: "G-d" and destroying holy names - reposting of the rules
Message-ID: <3008@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Dec-83 17:16:43 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3008
Posted: Thu Dec 29 17:16:43 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Dec-83 18:26:48 EST
References: <2971@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <6458@unc.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 22

Tim Maroney says:

-- I must be crazy to argue with a lawyer, but...
-- 
-- Dave, I never said that translating the Hebrew YHVH form as "G-d" was a
-- translation into normal English, only that it was a translation.  Given
-- this, your argument about the difference between "G-d" and normal English
-- doesn't really hold water.  If there is some difference between translating
-- a word and finding a readily comprehensible substitute, I don't know what it
-- is.  Care to try again?

I must be crazy to argue religion with unc!tim, but...

As I see it, the difference is that the *translation* is not into "G-d",
but into the fully-spelled word. Only when it is written casually, that
is, in some form in which it is likely to be destroyed, do we write the
word imperfectly. "G-d" is not a translation but an incomplete substitute
for the translation.

Dave Sherman
-- 
 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave