Right. Sorry Byrd, but despite your general good standing in my eyes, and reasonable level of sensibility as understood by sane people, I find your
post below to be a pile of old tosh.
Firstly, you mention several points regarding the words used in the OPs translation. Many posts point out that there's a Babelfish translation from
the (yes, modern) French which is much truer to the original Latin.
Secondly - you refer to historical documents which are accepted as historical. Come on. You only have to look at the Catholic treatment of the
prophecies of Fatima to see that prophetic documents are covered over by the etsablished powers, for many reasons. In the case of Fatima, I think the
RC church handled it extremely well (sensitively and according to the needs of the age).
Vatican - Secret Manuscript of
A quick note about why translation is to be considered a work of artistry:
Why Translation Matters
Just because a translation is not credited to the original translator, doesn't mean there is reason to doubt the authenticity by that fact alone.
Emanuel Swedenborg wrote his masterful 'Arcana Coelestia' under the pseudonym 'A Servant of The Lord'.
Arcana Coelestia - Vol 1
Along those lines of thought - why would a humble translator want to credit himself as the author of a prophecy? If this was translated in France,
the original Latin Manuscript could have been lost by any number of means - not least of which the overturning of the aristocracy (who would have
possessed curios such as old manuscripts) in the French Revolution -
Originally posted by Byrd
First of all, "John of Jerusalem" isn't "Knights Templar." It's "Knights Hospitallar", which is an entirely different organization:
Here's a list of the documents the order has that are known historical documents. No lengthy prophecies here:
WHAT IS HISTORY BUT AN AGREED UPON SET OF.....?
So... further fuel to the fire:
* the first time it EVER appears in print is 1994:
NOAH - not had time to check this yet
* "Penetration into the cosmos"
Prophecy doesn't deal with the science of the day. Perhaps he wrote it thinking they'd pop through the other side of the sky and bump into God..?
It would only be understood as space travel by modern readers. Again, forget the OP translation. Use the Babelfish one.
* "Hedonism, divorces..." were hardly new in 300 AD or 700 AD:
Fair point. They loved a bit of it.
* "Incest, homosexuality, pederasty, like epidemics, ***** " - Incest, homosexuality, and pederasty weren't considered illegal in many societies.
(Egypt, Sparta (and lots of other places), Sparta)
I reckon it may have been an aristocratical thing though - perhaps pedastry was looked down on by the common peoples, as in modern India mothers are
sad to send their daughters away to prostitution but do it anyway so they can be fed. Admitted, this is speculation. Perhaps the prophecy is
suggesting these things become uncontrollable and widespread. 'Man becomes beast', etc.
AIDS = translation error
* "islam. takes revenge upgraded for the Crusades"
Again, translation error imho. However, the crusades weren't a one-time event anyway. The nature of the original crusade = "We're off crusading
to kill some heretics. Back in a few years." Hence Crusades = multiple skirmishes and attacks = CrusadeS.
* I don't see those things as IGNORING child suffering.
What about child trafficking in countries other than the US, or UK et al..? Child suffering didn't stop when a couple of countries pretended they
were doing their utmost to resolve the issue. GET REAL..!
* "When the millennium begins, which comes after the millennium /The child to be sold
Think you're not quite zen enough in your approach to the text here Byrd, (the child selling - I accidentally deleted your comment re: its legality
in those days). It's for modern eyes, and for a people who would understand the immorality of these things
* "Everyone will be really a serf, and believe to be a free man and knight " - This could have only been written by a person unfamiliar with the
* "You will want to choose their children in the womb of their women"
NOAH - again, you're making assumptions (I accidentally deleted your point about the potions, rites & spells of the day for child sex determination).
I would guess at translation error. It's an art form remember?
And did anyone notice Beyond the Roman Limes and even on the old Reich
"Reich?" Can we all say "a glaring anachronism"?
I think the last point there is translation liberties gone awry - haven't had time to check it. You may be right - given that they'd already used a
phrase related to Shylock's pound of flesh in Merchant of Venice, we may assume they were a bit cheeky with the artistic licence.
Byrd - I've left in the points I haven't had time to check. Most can be refuted as your assumptions/ misdirectional statements of historical
'accuracy', unfair targeting of a poor translation etc. Perspective is a wonderful way to feel superior.
I'm not saying this isn't a hoax - but I am saying you most definitely haven't convinced me.
Super members and mods are so quick to point us out as 'simple' to believe in or allow for unknowables in things such as prophecies. IMHO the same
should dispense with the arrogance to believe that we can ever know everything about anything - or even anything about some things.
[edit on 18-7-2010 by Noah
[edit on 18-7-2010 by NoahTheSumerian]