Interesting part of an E-mail

[Hawk]

That is another fair interpretation.

[Gwizz]

Here is the interesting interpretation of the prophesy by Moses in symbols of Jet Planes, Battle Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Oil Barrels and an Eagle on the walls at abydos Egypt. This last Prophesy by moses is believed being fulfilled by the USA and others.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.occu ... e1859a113b

This interpretation also postulates a scientific polar shift will bring forth the end times.

Interesting if nothing more.

[Hawk]

Many people today are unaware that the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh
Ankhnaten and the biblical Moses were one and the same man.

I find that story a bit of a stretch of the imagination, but I guess everyone has to believe something.
I believe I'll have another drink.

[Redband]

Hawk, I guess the writer of that has accepted the theories of Ahmed Osman as fact. It might have helped if the name AKHENATEN had been spelt correctly.

Recently, Ahmed Osman has argued that Akhenaten and Moses are the same person. These views however haven't found widespread acceptance among historians.

If you want to read his theories for yourself:_

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/672/profile.htm

[Hawk]

It's all in the spelling.

Do a Google search for Pharaoh Akhenaten and you find info about an Egyptian Pharaoh.

Do a search for Pharaoh Ankhnaten and you turn up a whole different story, such as this;

King Tut was Moses’ son. King Tut was the only son of the Pharaoh Ankhnaten and his sister-wife Nefertiti.

found at this link; http://www.merkaba.org/announcements/pain_enlight.htm

Another group of people that believe this also believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Jesus suffered, but did not die. Jesus was unconscious, and appeared to be dead, when taken down from the cross. However, he was still alive. Purging solutions were later fed into Jesus’ body and he regurgitated out the snake venom.

Found at this link; http://www.thetruejesus.org/jesus/jesus_crucifixion.htm

A little more digging and it wouldn't surprise me that these same folks also believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene got married and had a whole pack of children. I'm not real interested in doing that digging though.

[Wolverine@MSU]

The Soviet Union is often ascribed to "the Bear", but I think Imperial Russia (during the time of the Czars) was the Eagle.

[bombardiere]

The Soviet Union is often ascribed to "the Bear", but I think Imperial Russia (during the time of the Czars) was the Eagle.

Yes you are right. Imperial Russia (Czars) had two-headed eagle as their symbol. Bear is more modern and I think it refers unyielding nature of Russian people. (And big scary Soviet bogeyman)

ANd I am far from bible expert, but as far as I know, the Eagle was Rome and the Lion Egypt. (or at the New Testament, Persia) I do take the Bible very serious, but I have to say that mentioned King James Bible version is really horrible. Almost everything was misstranslated and taken out of the context. Again I am not expert, but I understand King James Bible represent the original texts very poorly.

[bombardiere]

Another group of people that believe this also believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Jesus suffered, but did not die. Jesus was unconscious, and appeared to be dead, when taken down from the cross. However, he was still alive. Purging solutions were later fed into Jesus’ body and he regurgitated out the snake venom.

Found at this link; http://www.thetruejesus.org/jesus/jesus_crucifixion.htm

A little more digging and it wouldn't surprise me that these same folks also believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene got married and had a whole pack of children. I'm not real interested in doing that digging though.

Oh yeah Hawk. Many years ago I found from a sale a book called “Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Hidden Lineage of Jesus revealed”. Laurence Gardner. It essentially says the same, but the point of the book was trying to explain why a Belgian peasant is a direct descend of Jesus and thus (somehow) rightful heir to Scottish Crown. Hhhhhmmmmmm

The book has been with me many years and still I haven’t got half-way through. And let me say it doesn’t make any sense. There are some interesting insight of life in Palestine around 0 AD. But even those are “copied” from other books and any original claims are pure nonsense.

[Hawk]

Just curious; What version do you read bombar?

[bombardiere]

Just curious; What version do you read bombar?

Actually a good question. It is of course a Finnish version, and I understand it is modern translation. But to be honest I don't speak hebrew, aramea or greek, so actually I have no personal knowledge which version is closest to the original. hhhhmmmm that makes me think.

[Hawk]

I may be wrong but I think the modern translations (NIV) come from the King James Version.

[WPandP]

Hawk-

I'm no expert, but I do know that the NIV is not just a King James repackaged; they went back to pre-King James versions wherever they could to render the idioms in modern english. King James was basically a transcription of the Latin Vulgate, without consultation to Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew source texts. I have (very recently) heard arguments as to why KJV is more accurate and how the modern translations are detrimental to theology, but frankly I don't see it. I don't perceive vast incongruencies between translations, so I'm not all that worried about it.

Still, I think it is great practice to cross-check things in multiple versions, because there are nuances that one language (the original) may have, which can't really be portrayed in English (or Finnish, for that matter). Different translators may put varying emphasis on those aspects, and you have to figure that the truth lies somewhere in between.

I strongly dislike, however, the "Message" type of paraphrase bibles, which spoon-feed you concepts rather than translate God's words. But if one is using a paraphrase bible in conjunction with a KJV or other, for cross-reference purposes, well, I guess that's fine.

[Hawk]

Thanks for the input WP. Very informative.

[Canadian Viking]

Pardon the long post, please. Years ago I completely read 5 different books (and parts of several others) on Bible translations to try and figure out which one was indeed the best translation. One thing I learned for certain - no matter what the translation, someone has written a book about it claiming it is the best, most accurate translation on the market. And almost as certainly, someone else has written a book telling us that it is an inferior translation and not to be trusted.

Bombardiere is probably better off than we English readers; he likely has fewer Bible translations to choose from to confuse the issue.

The King James translators did use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts in their translations, and the NIV translators also went back to those three languages. The are 2 main parts to the debate about accuracy of translation:
1) which of the ancient manuscripts should be used in the translation (there are minor differences among them, which spark debate among the "experts"). When there is a variation between them, should the translator lean towards those manuscripts which we think are the most ancient, or go with the text that is in the majority of all the old manuscripts?
2) which philosophy of translation should be used: a) a precise word for word translation (as best as can be done between languages), which the King James translators followed, OR
b) a more general idea for idea translation (sometimes called dynamic equivalence) which was sometimes used by the NIV guys.

Whichever translation you use, about 98 - 99% will be the same as other translations. (Paraphrases, like The Message, can be quite different, but they are not translations.) On the whole, I think the KJV is a more accurate translation than the NIV. But every translation has what I think are some poorly translated verses. For example, within the 10 commandments the KJV says, "Thou shalt not kill." The NIV is more accurate here with "You shall not murder." The Hebrew word is NOT the general word for kill (as in, "Would you kill that mosquito, Honey?") but the word for murder - intentionally killing a human being who was not deserving of death.

Personally, I use the New King James most of the time, but also read the NIV and the English Standard Version. More important than the translation you read is, do you understand what Jesus meant when he said, "You must be born again!"?

[bombardiere]

Bombardiere is probably better off than we English readers; he likely has fewer Bible translations to choose from to confuse the issue.

Yes, I think we have had only three versions.

Thank you for all for interesting insights. Sometimes it is easy take things granted and forgot about deeper meanings.

BTW back to the eagles. Eagles have been used by two major Empires in Europe (others too, but these two have a connection) Austria and Russia. Actually both have connection to Rome and the Eagle is their symbol because of Rome.

Austria belonged in something called Germanic-Romanic Empire. (I don’t the proper English name) Although no direct connection to Rome, these claimed to be western heritage of the Rome. Most of the time the defacto ruler was Kaiser of Austria. Germanic-Romanic Empire wasn’t a nation state like, England or France, but a loose collection of smaller state. Most located in current day Germany.

Russia on the other hand claimed to be decent of Eastern-Rome (Constantinople) Therefore an Eagle too. I think that the Eagle is double-headed has some importance, but I don’t know what.

There is more. In fact titles Kaiser and Czar are both delivered from Caesar, and means emperor. And Nazis took their Eagle from Rome too, in their attempt to create pseudo-classic culture.

Rome has had huge impact on European history and Culture, even though the empire is long gone. Hope this hsitory leasson wasn't too boring...

[Hawk]

This thread is turning out to be really interesting. All for your input. I'm enjoying it.

As for the eagle, it's my thinking that since it's mentioned in the Book of Daniel, and Daniel pretty much deals with the end times, that's what gave me the idea that the eagle is referring to the USA since the bald eagle is our national bird.
Just my thoughts mind you.

[KevinL]

Correct me if I am wrong, but...

Wasn't Y2k actually a buffalo bull fart?

As an IT guy at the time, Y2K was a non-event *BECAUSE* of all the hard work we IT guys did in the background to fix the problems and make the transition as smooth as possible. Without us, it would have been a catastrophy.

[Redband]

I am no theologian but my reading of Daniel 7:4 is that the beast like a lion was lifted from the ground etc AFTER the wings were torn off, not that an eagle was.
All uses of 'it' clearly apply to the 'lion like beast' and not the wings.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

[AZ Rail Rat]

I guess it's a good thing Ben Franklin did not get his way and our national bird is the TURKEY!

I don't recall any verses in either Daniel or Revelation that mention it . . . unless it implies all the bible translators.

[Hawk]

I am no theologian but my reading of Daniel 7:4 is that the beast like a lion was lifted from the ground etc AFTER the wings were torn off, not that an eagle was.
All uses of 'it' clearly apply to the 'lion like beast' and not the wings.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

Personally I'm a bit confused by a lot of stuff in Daniel and Revelation.
It was mentioned earlier in this thread that it's the general consensus that those verses may be referring to the people splitting off from England and coming to the soon-to-be US. I'm not so sure I see it that way, but then-I don't have another way to interpret it.