Bible, Mayans, Nostradamus & 2012

[Yuki Sohma]

The King James Bible states "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

So how could any believing Christian place any credence into the Mayans and Nostradamus predicting "The End of the World" to be 2012.

Ref: 'The Mayan Calendar" , "The Lost Book of Nostradamus", & "The Gospel According to Matthew".

Yuki
"Peace in 2010"

 

[cityboy-stl]

I can't believe people are really serious about this. A lot of people are just making a lot of money off this 2012 thing and are going to laughing all the way to the bank in 2013. Come 2012 I'm going to be more worried about republicans than I am the end of the world.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

I can't believe people are really serious about this... Come 2012 I'm going to be more worried about republicans than I am the end of the world.

I'm a hearin' ya cityboy.....Oh how true that if Barrack keeps it up the Democrats may very well have a "Scrap of a Battle" on their hands in 2012..........

..........as to the Mayans--as they are no longer around..........they would have done better predicting and preventing their own demise ..........Peace in 2010..........

 

[Zingerific]

Well, when 2012 comes and goes, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that a "translation error" will be discovered, or an "uncorrupted scroll" will be found, and it will be revealed that the Mayan prophecy is still on for 2016!

I will say though, that if you can get that whole suspension-of-disbelief thing goin', the Mayans, Nostradamus and whatnot can be a lot of fun.

 

[poolerboy]

The King James Bible states "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

There's an interesting anecdote this New Testament scholar recounts that relates to the end times topic you've brought up. Hope you enjoy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zErMEJQtPzE[/ame]

Matthew 24:36 - Parallel Translations

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Hi poolerboy,

A very interesting "Discourse"......

I enjoyed the speaker’s comments such as & I liberally paraphrase with my apologies to the speaker--

"...I moved from New Jersey where such things (as the rapture) were not worried about..."

"(Unphased Whisenant said) I know not the day or the hour I just know the week"

If as is stated in the discourse--The "KJV (King James Version) Translators" attempted to alter Jesus' words in order to prove Jesus being "omnipotent" I feel that they (the translators) failed...

...It seems quite clear to me that by Jesus saying "...but my father only" Jesus only points out that his "Father" (not Joseph but Elohim) had as of yet not briefed Him (Jesus) with the full information...I believe that the "Apocalypse" is 100% Elohim's lane...

....I would like to also add that I am disappointed but not surprised that the Microsoft Corporation product I used to9 "Spell Check" this post failed to9 identify Elohim as a word....very, very poor Mr. Bill but please please don't send me a virus I already have the sniffles this morning ....

 

[Diodorus]

Thanks for the vid poolerboy. Very enlightening..There is a translation of the bible by a scholar by the name of George Lamsa. What is interesting about this translation is that it comes from what is known as the Peshitta text which is prevalent in the East and is written in Aramaic which is what language Jesus spoke in. So it is not going to go through the Latin-Greek-English labyrinth. Some very interesting differences.

 

[poolerboy]

Thanks for the vid poolerboy. Very enlightening..There is a translation of the bible by a scholar by the name of George Lamsa. What is interesting about this translation is that it comes from what is known as the Peshitta text which is prevalent in the East and is written in Aramaic which is what language Jesus spoke in. So it is not going to go through the Latin-Greek-English labyrinth. Some very interesting differences.

Yes, that text actually brought the Aramaic primacy view to the fore, but that view doesn't tend to be the dominant scholarly view. I showed one example of the problems associated with that view here, so most likely the Aramaic is simply a retroversion from the Koine Greek. Aramaic at best served as a source, especially for parts of the gospels.