Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[donald]

Not as such. Which bibles are the Gnostic bibles? I'm aware of a whole
bunch of Gnostic texts which are sometimes called "scriptures", but the only
"Gnostic Bible" I could find was a collection of Gnostic texts by Barnstone
and Meyer. Are there others?

In 1945 a red earthenware jar was found buried near Nag Hammadi, a town
in upper Egypt. Within thirteen papyrus books dating from A.D.350 were
discovered. The writings were those of believers in the
philosophy/religion of gnosticism. Gnosticism is heavily influenced by
the Hellenistic understanding that the material world is evil and the
spirit is good. Gnostics believed that the ultimate supreme God did not
create the world, but rather a lesser god, a ‘demiurge,’ created the
world poorly and imperfectly. The result was a material world filled
with decay, weakness, and death. But Gnostics believed that human
beings, though locked in this material body, have a spark of the higher
spiritual reality within. This spark, if fanned into a flame, can
liberate us and help us evolve back into spiritual perfection. This
happens through a process of self-discovery, in which you discover your
divine identity, you separate from the world by ‘stripping off ’ the
consciousness of the physical body, and you finally experience the
kingdom of light, peace, and life.

 

[No One]

Don't tell anyone, (No one) but, an electron has zero mass except as defined
by its relation to energy.
It doesn't rotate around a nucleous or travel as in electrical current.

An electron has a non-zero rest mass, an electric charge, spin (1/2),
and a magnetic dipole moment, among other properties. When bound to a
nucleus, it can be in states with non-zero angular momentum in addition to
its spin, which is an intrinsic property.

You might want to learn something before posting.

That is unless one uses 1980s tech.
????

(Note that he ignored the citations, which I included so that these
idiots would at least have some reason not to argue).

 

[No One]

Also, no credible scientist believes in the big bang theory any more.

he he he he he he he

Nobody uses the original model because it has been refined, but
all the evidence we have indicates that the universe was at one point
very small and very hot.

Are you just an idiot or are you trolling?

 

[No One]

I believe the "commonly accepted" value is 6,000 years.

You mean the number some cleric proposed by some hand-waving analysis
of who f___ed whom according to the Bible? Heard that they named the
first microprocessor after that data (B.C.) - it was meant as an "in"
joke.

 

[NotMe]

Please stop cross posting to unrelaed groups.

| In News [email protected],, Robert Baer at
| [email protected], typed this:
|
| > What is it with all this barfy language?
| > The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect
| > Translation Of The Bible?" is:
| > There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language
| > to another; it is not possible.
|
|
| And since the original Aramaic and Greek documents no longer exist, it's
not
| possible to compare them for accuracy.
|
|
| --
| "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
| enough to take away everything you have."
|
| Thomas Jefferson
|
|

 

[Meltdarok]

donald wrote, On 1/6/2008 3:23 PM:

Yes, they have.

The records of carbon dating, the chemical remnants of past events.

You have the word of someone that was written just a few hundred years ago.

Make believe is make believe no matter how much time passes.

But the Gnostic bibles are not in your vocabulary.

Just in case you wish to expand your mind:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gnostics.html


But I doubt it.


donald

The enlightening experience is characterized by Ch’an/Zen Buddhism as a
breaking free of the so-called normal thought patterns, to realize the
non-duality of one’s personal experience. One of the best expressions of
non-duality is this quote from the The Platform Sutra preached by the
Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng at the la-fan Temple in Shao-do:


"Within your own natures the ten thousand things
will all appear, for all things of themselves are within your own
natures. Given a name, this is the pure Dharmakaya Buddha."

{The Dharmakaya Buddha, or the formless body of the Buddha that
permeates through all things, can also be named the “Cause of all
causes,” or “First Cause,” or “The Prime Infinity.” It is in this body
that the whole of existence is manifested in all its glorious, yet
fleeting, transitoriness. All the forms that surround us, whether or not
we can sense them, are part and parcel of our own nature. When you
suddenly open your eyes to look; there is only your own nature to see,
wherever the eyes may be directed.}

"Taking refuge in oneself is to cast aside all actions that are not
good; this is known as taking refuge."

{-From the very beginning, taking refuge is the terminology used for
entering the Buddhist establishment, and to this day, when someone
wishes to enter a Zen monastery, “he” ceremoniously begs to enter the
establishment to study – and is ceremoniously rejected.}


"What are the ten thousand hundred billion Nirmanakaya Buddhas?
If you do not think, then your nature is empty; if you do think, then
you yourself will change."

{This is precisely what non-duality is, in a mere few words. The
Nirmanakaya Buddhas are the many fold manifestations of the physical
form of Buddha dwelling here on Earth, which includes you. The pinnacle
of one’s conscious experience then is using Skillful Intentions, or in
other words the Buddhist Work Ethic, to acquire that highly sought after
prize in Buddhism – Emptiness. A question would be, “are you skillful
enough so that you in your Dharmakaya Buddha body do not think thoughts
within the consciousness where you now find yourself to be focused?”}

"If you think of evil things then you will
change and enter hell; if you think of good things then you will
change and enter heaven. [If you think of] harm you will change and
become a beast; [if you think of] compassion you will change and become
a Bodhisattva. [If you think of] intuitive wisdom you will change
and enter the upper realms; [if you think of] ignorance you will
change and enter the lower quarters. The changes of your own natures
are extreme, yet the deluded person is not himself conscious of this."
(Yampolsky translation, p. 142.)

{Right here, a person should realize that as the Dharmakaya Buddha, they
are not just the physical body itself, but rather the entire
“environment” in which they reside. One should be aware that one is all
things at once, and through using Skillful Intentions then, one is in
charge of what environment one will reside in. It is through ignorance
that a person loses control, and sinks into the lower realms. This is
also an analogy of the conscious process itself. Setting aside concepts
of the afterlife, using Skillful Intentions would have a positive effect
on one’s fortunes in this world; perhaps gaining prosperity, or more
significantly - tranquility.}

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 3:30 PM:

Why should I mind when we didn't have instrumentation needed to
make the measurements until fairly recently.

Do you have anything substantial to say or are you just arguing
for the sake of arguing?

I will finish off with a quote from the late Buddhist philosophical
entertainer Alan Watts.

"The system as a whole appears to be a distribution of solid entities
or nodes of energy in the midst of emptiness or space. Human
consciousness preoccupies itself with these entities, and virtually
ignores their spatial background." --The Art of Contemplation, 1972.

 

[Tom]

It would have been an important enough result that lots of people would
check it and we'd find out in fairly short order whether the measurement
was correct.

Was it? Who really checked? Do you know how unpopular replication studies
actually are? Almost nobody does them, especially those that were
expensive. Funding sources for scientific experiments aren't interested in
tedious duplication of something that's already been done. They want new,
exciting discoveries. Replication is often relegated to the least promising
and most unimaginative graduate students, if it's done at all.

Oh, and BTW, in 1964, a violation of CP invariance was
discovered, which had been thought up until that time to have no
exceptions. The theory (of the weak interaction) changed as a result.
So your "who would have believed it" has been proven false.

Tiny adjustments in theory are easy. That was no earth-shaking discovery.
It was a minor curiosity and didn't really shake anything up at all.

Try not to snip mid sentence. Here's what you actually replied to (so
the meaning was quite different than what you pretended it to be):

:: QED was developed in the 1940s and the theory has not changed since,
:: athough we did learn how to explain both the electromagnetic force and
:: the weak interaction in a single theory.

And just how did that snip distort the meaning of your statement? It
didn't. Not at all. Quit whining about irrelevancies and address my point.
Or don't and I'll consider it conceded.

... which is why people get Nobel prizes for discovering things that
changed longly held beliefs? Get real.

Here's some reality for you. Have you noticed the lag time between the
actual experiment and the awarding of the prize? How long did it take for
plate tectonics to be accepted, for example? Conclusive evidence for its
validity was published in 1968, and the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2000.
That, in case you can't count, is *thirty two years* after the evidence was
made public. It was almost ninety years after the theory was first proposed,
which one would think would have greased the skids of believeability a bit.
The lag time between the publication of evidence supporting some
"revolutionary" theory and the awarding of the Nobel Prize is typically
twenty years and often considerably more. And most of the prizes are not
awarded to "revolutionary" theories at all, but to clever verifications for
parts of current theories which hadn't yet been verified.

Idiot.

Moron. We're still even. This time in the name-calling department.

 

[Tom]

Sigh - we'll obtain more precise measurements of very tiny changes of
the intensity and temperature with direction (in the sky). We don't
exactly "collect it". We measure it.

We measure it in the present. We don't measure it a billion years ago.
Once the phenomenon is measured, its data is considered to have been
"collected", but not before. It was not collected when it happened, but a
billion years later. So we have not been collecting data for a billion
years. We have been collecting it only as long as we have the records of
it, which is only a few thousand years at most. Most of the data you're
talking about has only been collected over the past hundred years or so.

 

[Tom]

In 1945 a red earthenware jar was found buried near Nag Hammadi, a town in
upper Egypt. Within thirteen papyrus books dating from A.D.350 were
discovered. The writings were those of believers in the
philosophy/religion of gnosticism.

These fragmentary manuscripts have come to be known as the "Dead Sea
Scrolls", not "Gnostic bibles". Refine your terms.

 

[No One]

I will finish off with a quote from the late Buddhist philosophical
entertainer Alan Watts.

<snip>

Alan Watts was more or less a poet who wouldn't have been able to pass
Physics 101. So, I'll conclude that you have nothing substantive to
say about the topic you were pretending to try to discuss.

 

[No One]

We measure it in the present. We don't measure it a billion years ago.
Once the phenomenon is measured, its data is considered to have been
"collected", but not before.

It originated billions of years ago and the photons that we detect
have been traveling through space ever since, basically decoupled
from matter.

It was not collected when it happened, but a billion years later.
So we have not been collecting data for a billion years. We have
been collecting it only as long as we have the records of it, which
is only a few thousand years at most. Most of the data you're
talking about has only been collected over the past hundred years or
so.

You are really unclear on the concept. I suggest you keep to a topic
you are familiar with. You might try your health and today's weather
at your location.

 

[No One]

Was it? Who really checked? Do you know how unpopular replication studies
actually are?

Actually its been checked a lot of times, usually with people publishing
new results by improving the accuracy of the previous measurements. It's
not like we had better than 10 significant figures the first time it was
measured.

Almost nobody does them, especially those that were expensive.

Not true - not in physics.

Funding sources for scientific experiments aren't interested in
tedious duplication of something that's already been done.

That's where you are simply wrong:
<http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october31/einstein-103107.html>

There have been several previous tests of the equivalence principle,
done multiple times over the years with improvements in sensitivity
each time.

They want new, exciting discoveries. Replication is often relegated
to the least promising and most unimaginative graduate students, if
it's done at all.

ROTFLMAO. Measuring something to a part in 10 to the 15 is not easy,
and is not the sort of thing "the least promising and most unimaginative"
student is going to pull off.

Also try <http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm> and look at
Table V. It lists around 20 experiments, most in the 20th century,
and the improvements in accuracy have been impressive.

Whatever way these experiments turn out, the results are important.

Tiny adjustments in theory are easy. That was no earth-shaking discovery.
It was a minor curiosity and didn't really shake anything up at all.

What???? It was a major discovery!

And just how did that snip distort the meaning of your statement? It
didn't. Not at all. Quit whining about irrelevancies and address my point.
Or don't and I'll consider it conceded.

You did distort the meaning since, since I clearly pointed out that we
learned something new and had to revise some theories as a result, although
it doesn't impact the accuracy of the predictions for g.

Here's some reality for you. Have you noticed the lag time between the
actual experiment and the awarding of the prize? How long did it take for
plate tectonics to be accepted, for example? Conclusive evidence for its
validity was published in 1968, and the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2000.

ROTFLMAO. It often takes a long time because there is a lot of
interesting work going on and you can't hand it out to everyone at
once. Furthermore, they sometimes want to wait and see how the work
impacted other research.

That, in case you can't count, is *thirty two years* after the evidence was
made public.

While I can count, you obviously are a fool who can't think.

Moron. We're still even. This time in the name-calling department.

Dude, you are a complete and utter idiot - vying even with some of the
biggest fools on usenet. You'll even give the Wentzky troll a run for
his money and that guy is a dumb as they get.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 1:38 AM:

<snip>

Alan Watts was more or less a poet who wouldn't have been able to pass
Physics 101. So, I'll conclude that you have nothing substantive to
say about the topic you were pretending to try to discuss.

In other words you just lost face.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 1:38 AM:

<snip>

Alan Watts was more or less a poet who wouldn't have been able to pass
Physics 101. So, I'll conclude that you have nothing substantive to
say about the topic you were pretending to try to discuss.

In others words, you just lost face.
Oh yeah, the quote you snipped:

"The system as a whole appears to be a distribution of solid entities
or nodes of energy in the midst of emptiness or space. Human
consciousness preoccupies itself with these entities, and virtually
ignores their spatial background." --The Art of Contemplation, 1972.

 

[donald]

These fragmentary manuscripts have come to be known as the "Dead Sea
Scrolls", not "Gnostic bibles". Refine your terms.

This figures, if you can't understand it, change its meaning.


This link does not agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

Shame

donald

 

[Tom]

Actually its been checked a lot of times, usually with people publishing
new results by improving the accuracy of the previous measurements. It's
not like we had better than 10 significant figures the first time it was
measured.

"A lot of times." How many? How checked? Cite them.

That's where you are simply wrong:
<http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october31/einstein-103107.html>

That wasn't a replication study. It was one of those big, exciting studies
that funding sources like to fund, just like I said. Would you like to cite
any more evidence in support of my statements?

There have been several previous tests of the equivalence principle,
done multiple times over the years with improvements in sensitivity
each time.

Like I say, the results, each a little more accurate than the last and all
in support of exactly what was expected according to the presently accepted
theory, are easily accepted because they are already believed.

ROTFLMAO. Measuring something to a part in 10 to the 15 is not easy,
and is not the sort of thing "the least promising and most unimaginative"
student is going to pull off.

It isn't a replication if it doesn't repeat a previous experiment. This was
no replication but a refinement of the equipment taken to a level never seen
before. That's press-sexy enough to attract funding. Measuring something
more precisely is a triumph of the technology but not a revolutionary
discovery. All it did was confirm what is already believed. That's why the
results were accepted so quickly.

Also try <http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm> and look at
Table V. It lists around 20 experiments, most in the 20th century,
and the improvements in accuracy have been impressive.

Yep. We love to tout better measuring devices. However, if any of those
attempts comes up with unexpected numbers, it'll be a long tiome before
those new numbers are accepted as something other than an "artifact" or
"methodological problems". I keep telling you, people are people. They
easily accept evidence that confirms their beliefs and suspect evidence that
disconfiorms them. You're doing the same thing right now.

What???? It was a major discovery!

It was a tiny adjustment in a theory that you yourself have said has been
unchanged for fifty years, except for tiny adjustments.

You did distort the meaning since, since I clearly pointed out that we
learned something new and had to revise some theories as a result,
although
it doesn't impact the accuracy of the predictions for g.

So you didn't actually mean to say that the theory has not been changed
since the 1940's? So it has been changed in that time? If that's the case,
then it confirms to my comment that theories are standing unchanged for less
and less time these days. Do you disagree with this? If you do, then you
shouldn't try to backpedal on your statement that the theory is unchanged
and should be arguing that you believe it will remain unchanged for a long
time. Yet you seem to be arguing exactly the opposite.

ROTFLMAO. It often takes a long time because there is a lot of
interesting work going on and you can't hand it out to everyone at
once. Furthermore, they sometimes want to wait and see how the work
impacted other research.

No, that's only what you imagine to be the reason for the lag time. In
actuality, the delay is to allow the results of the research to withstand
"the test of time".

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed..._hole_in_selecting_nobel_peace_prize_winners/

"It means that before a scientist, author, or economist receives a Nobel
Prize, his work has been sifted, weighed, put to the test of time. Its
importance has been established, often through years of peer review."

http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.p...Idoc_Session=2afb65bc53fbc50ef87bbe0656799003

"The award in chemistry requires that the significance of achievements being
recognized is 'tested by time.' In practice, it means that on an average the
lag between the discovery and the award is typically on the order of nearly
20 years and can in fact be much longer."

While I can count, you obviously are a fool who can't think.

You respond with an Argumentum Ad Hominem, devoid of any rational content.
OK.

Dude, you are a complete and utter idiot -

Dunce, you are a complete and utter moron. See? We're still even. Don't
waste your time on this sort of nonsense. You're not impressing anybody
with it. Argue the point or don't. Throwing temper tantrums about it only
wastes your time.

 

[Tom]

It originated billions of years ago and the photons that we detect
have been traveling through space ever since, basically decoupled
from matter.

We didn't collect that data a billion years ago. That's the point. We
collected it very recently.

You are really unclear on the concept.

The concept is that we didn't start collecting that data a billion years
ago. We weren't here a billion years ago. Is that too hard for you to
understand?

 

[donald]

We didn't collect that data a billion years ago. That's the point. We
collected it very recently.




The concept is that we didn't start collecting that data a billion years
ago. We weren't here a billion years ago. Is that too hard for you to
understand?

The part that you seem to be missing is that _you_ don't _have_ to be
there to understand what happened.

Just like the light of a star that has burned out many many centuries
ago, its still shining today.

The rocks themselves have collected the data that is used today.
We just need to know how to read it.

Man did not even have a clue until modern science has open the eyes
today's scientists.

An obvious capture device was tree sap. The sap dried with bits of the
world it came from.
Today when we find those samples of history, we can see into the past.

The old proverb, "you can not tell which way the train went be looking
at the track", does not fit is this discission.

Yes, you are correct that some things can not be seen ever again.
But, as science locates the bits a history waiting to be discovered, we
sudennly have those insights.

Botton line here is, I for at least one, will keep my mind open to
change my opnion about past events and NOT just accept a fairy tale
written by those who we do not uncerstand their true goals.

I am not a "blind faith" type.

donald

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 1:38 AM:

In other words you just lost face.

Nope. You made a fool of yourself by trying to drag a philosopher
of sorts into a discussion in which he had no expertise, which also
seems to be true of you.

Declaring victory, which is what you are trying to do, won't work.