Re: a code behind the bible
Well, I have read quite a lot of interesting comments on this subject, but to be honest I think many people commenting on this subject seem to be misinformed as to what the bible code is and what books are included in it etc. Therefore I will attempt to address as many comments here as I can when and where needed.
First, Dark is correct that there have been many translations of the books of the bible over the past few centuries from language to language , and yes several names have been changed as they have been converted from one language to another. The name Jesus Christ is Greek in origin, and it goes without saying that most bible scholars are aware that the person we know as Jesus was actually named Yeshua in Hebrew. In fact, many of the saints we know today as Jacob, John, Joshua, James, Peter, etc are not the original names of those people assuming they actually lived. They were changed in the process of converting the various books of the bible from one language to a nother. However interesting that may be to you it actually has no bearing on the bible code, because the people who first discovered or came up with the bible code were working from ancient Hebrew texts, in fact the first five books of the bible, so all of this speculation of multiple translations, the changing of names, and so on doesn't really matter as none of that effects the old Hebrew manuscripts themselves. It would only matter if they were working with a more modern translation of the texts.
I would like to point out that when the bible code was first introduced to the world the person who came up with it was only working with the Torah, the first five books of the bible, so speculations about other new testament gospels etc really is an irrelevant point in debunking the original hypothesis. Now, there have been others who have come along later on and tried to say there were bible codes hidden in the new testament, and in that case yes the point that the oth er gospels etc might have a bearing on this subject would matter, but only if one is debunking the people who have come out in favor of bible codes in books beyond those supposedly discovered in the Torah. So I think we need to be more specific on which bible code scholar and hypotheses we are discussing here.
Second, Nin wonders if the original is stored somewhere. I since we are discussing the bible I am going to assume he is talking about the original scrolls that made up the bible. Specifically, the old testament.
In answer to that we don't have anything dating back to when they were supposed to have been written. It is believed by biblical scholars that the first few books were written between 500 BC and 600 BC, but there are no in tact scrolls from that time. All we have is remnants, scraps really, and all of the modern translations of the bible were translated from much newer copies of the old testament. As I recall the oldest copy of the old testament we cur rently have that is in tact was dated around 900 AD so that makes dating and comparison with the originals difficult.
Third, as to what is contained in the bible code there is all kinds of supposed predictions such as the Challenger Explosion, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, the Kennedy assassination, etc. Basically, all the usual historical events that normally get ascribed to Nostradamus as predicting and now are supposedly contained in the bible once you know the secret to unlocking the bible code. However, as Zakc93 pointed out they are always interpretations based on making the event match up with the text to sound like a prediction. I have yet to hear someone make a quantifiable prediction.
Fourth, Nin pointed out that some of the text in the bible has been translated wrong. On that he is correct. There are many places where one can go through there favorite English translation of the bible and find various errors where the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic texts w ere improperly translated into English. This is something well known to bible scholars and not something that is in any doubt.
For example, in some of the King James versions of the bible scholars have noticed that wild ox was translated as unicorn in a couple of places. I want to say in the Psalms. Since there aren't any unicorns, never were such a thing, its obviously a translation error made by the men who translated the Hebrew texts into English for King James I. I am sure they did the best they could, but mistakes were obviously made, nor is that the only example of things that were poorly translated.
In many cases the problem was that English simply didn't have any words analogous to what they were attempting to translate. In Genesis 1 the translators simply used the word God instead of Elohim. the problem for the translators is there is no word in English with the exact meaning of Elohim. The name Elohim can be singular or plural depending on conte xt , and can mean both at the same time. If the translators used the word gods it would sound as though there was more than one god rather than the theological position that God is one being with multiple aspects father, son, and holy spirit. In English we do not have a word to express that unique singular and plural state existing at the same time. So God will have to do.
Finally, as for the inerrancy of the bible I would strongly ask people to reconsider that position as it is irrational to think the bible has no errors. By than I am not just talking about translation errors, but there are some pretty major conflicts even in the original texts that can not be reconciled logically no matter how much Christians might like to believe otherwise.
For example, if you look at the four canonical gospels all of them tell a slightly different story about what happened when Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalen visited Jesus's tomb after he resurrected. In one sto ry they met one Angel who tells both women that Jesus has risen. In another tale they enter the tomb and encounter two angels who are sitting down who tells them Jesus is not there and has risen.
the problem with this conflict should be obvious. Either there is one angel or two, but they both can't be true. One or the other story has to be in error, or both stories are wrong. However, its not something that can be reconciled because we have two conflicting accounts of the same event. So the people who claim that the bible is inerrant, without errors, really need to come up with a plausible explanation for how two different accounts can both be true, and I am not sure they can.
I might point out that is only one example of where the gospels simply do not agree on various events. The people who believe the bible has no conflicts, is inerrant, are either uninformed of these conflicts or have been duped by their religious teachers into believing a falsehood that can eas ily be proven false by anyone who is aware of them. Whatever the case while I respect people's right to believe what they want to believe I also think they should take off the religious blinders and realize that as a book its not perfect and is full of mistakes.
URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=176885#p176885
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
