Well without the translation of the oldest texts of mother Shiptons prophesies we will not know if any of the actual prophesies or verses have been added, removed or modified, as compared to the modern version we have today.
This stems from the assumption that there are or were older texts, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified.
So yes it does make good sense to go back to the earliest version.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Please check again (emphasis added).
"If the capacity exists for translating the original into Modern English, then there is no reason for analyzing a translation over the original, in the context of determining what is genuine or not."
This was in direct response to you assertion that, "…the only way to find out is to have the original Richard Heads version translated directly into modern English."
But whether those prophesies have and or will come true that is another question.
Whether "prophecy" even exists as a force in reality is the question.
I would like to point out that the older the manuscript the more chances of the initial meaning behind the words may change or be lost especially when the translation comes from a foreign langauge.
That depends solely on the language in question, and doesn't solve the problem of translating translations of translations of translations, and so on.
This fact rings true for all manuscripts the bible is not exempt from this. Even in the english translations of the bible over the years we can see the change, have you ever looked at the "King James Version" and then compared it to the "New Revised Standard Version" can you honestly say that there arent different meanings coming across from different versions of the bible.
True enough, but the original King James was without the benefit of later discoveries (notably the Dead Sea Scrolls), so you're really comparing apples and oranges. Newer translations are actually more accurate, from older source material, than was the KJV. Every translator has his biases, of course, which is all the more reason to have the oldest material available and have as many people reviewing it as possible.
On the topic of "Something", well when I recognizance it, I will be running for the hills so I wont have time to answer your question lol.
Well, I'm left to conclude from that answer that you don't really have one.
In all honesty I am not here to nick pick or argue about the tiny details or the evidence of a prophecy because any prophecy by nature is anything but specific and it is told from perspective of the seer. Have you ever tried to explain an object to someone, you have the image in your mind but the person on the receiving end just cant picture it, well I think that sums up prophecies.
Complete cop-out. "I can't defend my claim, because we just aren't capable of understanding these magical individuals called prophets."
Yet you apparently understand well enough to make the claim, "…they do not give a date but they may hint to something happing soon." Funny, that.
So what exactly do you want from a prophecy, the time, date, and GPS coordinates?
The first step is to demonstrate that such a thing even exists. As for what I want from it, that's like a god-believer asking what evidence is sufficient for me to "believe" in some deity. It's your job to provide evidence for your own claims. It's not my job to give you a template to fill in.
If some catastrophe happens it will happen,
And catastrophes do happen, typically out of nowhere and curiously detached from prophets and their magic.
if it doesn't then thats great but I tell you this you cannot prove this prophesy wrong if nothing happens in 2012
It's not my job to prove that prophecy is wrong, incoherent, nonexistent or anything else. It's the job of the so-called prophets and prophet apologists to demonstrate that they are right.
…because nowhere does it state in the prophesy 2012. You can only prove the person wrong who believes that this prophesy is related 2012.
Yeah, if prophets, doomsayers and conspiracy theorists have one thing in common, it's their fetish for vagueness that lets them play fill-in-the-blank later. Claims built in this way, especially when interpreted metaphorically by determined believers, can be neither verified nor falsified. When one interpretation fails, the claimant can just move the goal posts or alter the claim altogether. "Prophecy" is useless, outside of certain dubious business practices.
So thats my stance I am not a firm believer in it
Now you say, when asked to defend your claim.
…but I'll have an open mind
Believing in "prophecy" or magic of any kind crosses the line between open-mindedness and gullibility.
catastrophes have happened in the past and will happen in the future
Almost certainly.
but will I see one in my lifetime?
I don't know. Even if you do, that doesn't mean some soothsayer foretold it, especially when soothsaying is conveniently and almost universally nonspecific (as you yourself have conceded).
pete (guest) 18 May 2010 13:01
