Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner
From: ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Bible *not* bible! - (nf)
Message-ID: <1323@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jan-84 08:10:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.1323
Posted: Sun Jan 15 08:10:35 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 01:24:13 EST
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 23

#R:ihuxj:-35600:ucbesvax:8200002:000:797
ucbesvax!turner    Jan 14 18:07:00 1984

    /***** ucbesvax:net.religion / ihuxj!dob /  1:37 am  Jan 14, 1984*/
    It makes me sad that even well-meaning Christians write "bible". I fear that
    it too may go the way of kleenex, xerox, and coke.
		    
			    Daniel M. O'Brien
			    ....!ihuxj!dob
    /* ---------- */

Interesting...the notion of "bible" as generic Bible, just as xerox has
(in the eyes of the purists at Xerox) been corrupted into a generic
term for "copy".

But Daniel, surely you would admit that there are such things as bibles
already?  Read the Reader's Digest bible, if you don't believe me.  For
that matter, the King James version is a bible, considering that it is
a translation to vernacular (no less, in that pitiful sense, than the
Reader's Digest version.)
---
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)