There are a few translation errors in bible but other than that the book is compliant.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I thought you bible scholars knew that its not a 100% perfect translation.
-- Brent Nichols (email@example.com), January 07, 2000
Don't you mean they're not perfect translations?
There are so many different versions of the Bible sometimes I'm suprised there's no North American Holy War (well, except the one in Kansas between Creationism and Evolution. Yeah. No kidding. 90 years after the Scopes monkey trial).
-- Grant Naylor (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
Brent, I'm a Christian...but this is not only OFF TOPIC but an argument without end.
-- TM (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
Name them dirtbag. While you're at it, name which sorry version you're reading. Scholars are mostly a bunch of educated monkeys who think their education is superior to the Book. If you want perfection, God wrote it for the English speaking people in 1611. It's called the Authorized Version.
-- trafficjam (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
Dirtbag? Now THAT sounds like the perfect Christian speaking. Better live what you preach, bible thumper.
-- Bob Dole (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
May I suggest that all discrepancies posted contain (1) the "original" Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, (2) the name of the document from the "original" was taken, and (3) at least 3-4 English translations (including KJV and NIV)? That way, we can properly determine whether or not it is indeed a discrepancy.
-- Mad Monk (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
Apparently, Brent's brain went off-line with the rollover. His thinking hasn't been compliant with human thought processes since at least the date rollover. Now, we is somehow lost in a time warp, posting messages of possible y2k doom AFTER the world has made it out of the woods.
Brent, if you'll wander back down the hall, the boys in the white coats are waiting for you with dinner. They'll be there to wipe the peas off of your chin, and to give you nice crayons and a coloring book afterwards.
Have a nice night.
-- Bad Company (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
I hear the Book of Krepansky is quite revealing.
John Krepansky is a personal deity to many of us here on the forum.
We love you John, keep posting, we'd be lost without your guidance.
-- Gordon (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
This is probably a really good place to say... "DONT FEED THE TROLL."
-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 07, 2000.
Don't want to burst your bubble but let's look at facts please......
The Authorized Version contained the books of the Apocrypha when it was first printed......King James, if you look at historical fact, had the Bible translated for political reasons and was actually one of the most perverse evil kings that Britain has ever had.
There are far superior translations out there such as Rotherham's Bible which haven't butchered the meaning of scripture for political reasons and in order to control the peasants........
These unadulterated versions clearly show that any judgement of God was for the benefit of those being corrected (correction was the actual meaning of what those nasty buggers translated judgement). They also clearly show that God is not the asshole that most translators under orders of the church (or King) make him out to be. The final picture of all of God's creation and people being reconciled to him is ABSOLUTELY clear and undeniable.........
Make no mistake......the books of the Bible have been terribly translated (on purpose) as a means for the church and state to control the peasants through FEAR. It's the biggest tragedy in history quite frankly and is the major cause of people being angry with God......
How the state and church could malign God with their sick and perverse translations is tragic indeed.......
-- Craig (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
Oh, yeah, Gordon. We remember you, too. Make any great predicitions lately?
-- Bad Company (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
How about this one!
Isaac is translated: Laughter in the Old Testament.
Isaac is translated: 2664. katapauo, kat-ap-ow'-o; from G2596 and G3973; to settle down, i.e. (lit.) to colonize, or (fig.) to (cause to) desist:--cease, (give) rest (-rain). In the new.
Who are the colonizers of the Earth?
(Gen 21:12 KJV) "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called."
Couldn't be (I)saxon could it?
(Rom 9:7 KJV) "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called."
-- Mark Hillyard (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
.....Are you saying that you believe the SCRIBES that worked for King James were annointed?
-- Patrick (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
"Danger, Danger, Will Robinson! Debate about translations of the Bible approaching! Possible thermonuclear explosions likely! Take cover immediately! Danger, Danger!"
-- DeeEmBee (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
-- trafficjam (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.>
Trafficjam, you are not exactly correct. Scholars are a bunch of educated PRIMATES, some of whom think that education is superior to DOGMA.
By the way, jam man, you too are a primate. I hope you can live with that.
-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
Oh, Lordy! Now Craig and Bad Company are going to teach us about Christianity??? LOL! LOL! ROFLOL!
-- We *ARE* doomed!! (I told you so@it's.true), January 07, 2000.
Brent, it seems like I have noticed some contradictions in The Bible. Perhaps it was from translation errors. What you're saying makes much sense to me, but I've noticed that people are generally narrow minded when it comes to religion.
Craig, what you say is extremely interesting. We've always had a King James Version. I'll look for a Rotherham translation. I'm curious to see the differences.
Thanks to you both....Cin =0)
-- cin (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.
But what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? DO these hold any messages regarding y2K?
-- DAVID (email@example.com), January 07, 2000.
I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls have been studied by a select group of scholars who have been working for over a decade. They are sworn to secrecy, and must agree on every translation prior to its release. Very little has been released.
I know this sounds like a NWO conspiracy theory, but I think my memory is correct here. The folks working on this effort have had more than enough time to assemble, transcribe, and translate the articles several times over. The slow delivery of translated protions of the archeological discovery just naturally lead to speculation regarding the true nature of the articles. Many wonder if the modern day version of the Bible is very different from the earlier day version. Such differences would pose difficult problems for those who believe in an omnipotent and unchanging god.
Kind of like the problem I have believing we have abrogated 30 years of computer programming history. Also, perhaps the DSS tranlation process in an analogy for the way we will learn of any Y2K problems: slowly, and only after the select few agree that each announcement conforms to current spin. Maybe these thoughts provide the tie-in between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Y2K problem /:-)
-- Uhhmmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), January 08, 2000.