ANWR Email Propaganda

Some of you may have received emails lately with the subject: ANWR Deception. These emails disparage the democrats and the green point of view in general. While I'm not here to defend democrats or anyone else, I feel it is important to know the facts since most email forwards are completely bogus. This one doesn't lie necessarily, but it does present quite a bit of propaganda.

I present the following numbers:

The US imports around 5 billion barrels of oil per year. The US uses 7.6 billion barrels per year.

7 billion barrels is what we can expect in total production from ANWR at the outside top top top estimate. Over the life of drilling, which will be well beyond 30 years, we can expect the price of oil to drop about $1 per barrel as a result of drilling in ANWR. Oil is already $140 per barrel. If ANWR is allowed to be drilled now, we can expect a drop in gas prices of about 5 cents per gallon, in ten years.

We don't need oil from ANWR. It won't help us much anyway. The whole flapping thing will give us less than 1 year's worth (that's 2005 numbers) of oil, and it will take more than thirty years to get all of it. To put it in perspective, the Strategic Oil Reserve holds about one tenth of the total volume of what ANWR holds. It won't help us, it won't lower gas prices, and it sure won't help us get rid of our addiction to oil. Not that I am particularly against drilling there, but it would be like standing on the stern of the Titanic with a bucket.

I say we save it for say thirty years in the future when we need a source of plastic.
WiredForStereo

Another Lying Email, This Time, it is About Barack Obama

I just finished reading chapter 11 of "The Shack" by William P. Young, and after crying to the point of not being able to continue reading a few times, I really don't feel like writing right now, but I feel that I must, because one thing I've done here is combat bogus email forwards, and I have another one for you.

Again, I have no political affiliations and just because this post is the second in a row in regard to Barack Obama does not mean that I am voting for him or in any way trying to support him or any other candidate.

I received the following email from a friend from church. He is a great guy, but he is a conservative after all.

Subject: MEET BARAK...A TRUE STORY ABOUT OBAMA..........OMG I WILL PRAY REAL HARD!!!!

Meet Barak

Guys we need to pray hard, our Nation is in a bad
place for the next Presidential election, in 2008.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please
forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what
lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and
pray about it and share it.

THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO. THIS COUNTRY
WAS FOUNDED, "ONE NAT ION UNDER GOD". ALMIGHTY GOD, NOT THE GOD OF THE KORAN.

We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual.
Check for yourself..

Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein
Obama was born in
Honolulu , Hawaii , to Barack Hu ssein Obama, Sr., a
black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel , Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita , Kansas ..

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii . When Obama was two
years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His
mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim
from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family re located to
Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . He also spent
two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is
a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but
that he also attended Catholic school." He does not say the Pledge
of Allegiance, sing the National Anthem, nor put his hand over his
heart when others pledge or sing.
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's
introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was
temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya
soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over
his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husb and of Obama's mother,
Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in
a Wahabi school in Jakarta .

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim
terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since
it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when
seeking major public
office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United
Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
background.

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID
NOT use the Hol y Bible, but instead the Koran (Their equiva lency to
our Bible, but very different b eliefs)
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected
presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S .
from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest
level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!
If it comes down to being between him or Hillary .. then we REALLY are
between a rock and a hard place.

Please forwa rd to everyone you know. Would you want
this man leading our
country?...... NOT ME!!!

Please do note the multiple misspellings and especially the gratuitous mention of snopes.com where all these claims are supposedly verified.

When I first read this, it didn't look right. After all, I am a conscientious American person who has already investigated somewhat into the candidates of the upcoming election. I had heard the rumor before that Obama was a Muslim and decided to check and found that he was not, and for many reasons. So just to make sure, I actually went to snopes.com and checked out whether or not these things were actually true though I already knew they were not. You can find the page at the following url.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

What to my wondering eyes did appear but that Barack Obama was high atop the top ten list at the fabulous Snopes website. So, as has become my practice, I hit the "Reply All" button and wrote a scathing reply to aforementioned bogus email and sent it off with a hint of nervousness as per the usual. You see, as a champion of truth (that I strive to be) I cannot let things like this go, so not only do I need to tell the person who sent it the error of their ways, but I need to spread the word in like "Forward" fashion, especially to those who have already received this poison (as any lie is.) I have done the same thing several times before, each time I have documented the corrections on the blog here, but I have not enumerated the procedure I have used.

These lies are damaging to the political process, and I am embarrassed for my friend because he claims to be a believer. As a Jesus Freak, I cannot allow lies like this or any other to continue to be espoused, and I cannot let a fellow believer to spread lies especially in a religious and Christian context. It is simply wrong. It does not matter if Obama were a Muslim or a Scientologist or a Satan worshiper. To lie and to be a Christian are mutually exclusive states of being.

In conclusion, Think people! Do you think that something like a Muslim candidate for president of the United States would have slipped through the cracks? For crying out loud, there's been enough minority talk, it would be like if someone missed the fact that Hillary was a woman. There would be an uproar. So don't believe lies. Don't believe things that look suspiciously like lies. Don't believe things that are supposedly secrets yet are being broadcast wet willy (you know who you are) nilly throughout the internet. And for the love of all things righteous and good, if you are gonna tell us you looked it up on Snopes, at least have the stones not to lie about that either.

Good night to all both of you,
WiredForStereo

Most Accurate Bible Translation Question on Jeopardy with Alex Trebek and Jehovah's Witnesses Apparent Continual Spreading of this Myth, +Jason BeDuhn

WOW, I have gotten so many, I repeat MANY searches directed to this blog on this question. I did a quick search myself and discovered that my blog is the second in line on GOOGLE on this subject.

You can check the archives for this blog for the email forward I received from my cousin. He is a Jehovah's Witness, and apparently received this email from someone else, likely a JW also. Seeing all of you here leads me to believe you either got the same email or one similar.

Now, I'd love to go into just how many issues I have with the New World Translation of the Bible, however, there are just so many questionable verses, it would be exhausting to explore them all. This is a quick and simple post, so please don't leave a bunch of comments about how I've not done my research.

Many well educated scholars have called the NWT a poor translation, a woeful mistranslation, and a few other choice words I'll not mention here. Some others, very minor controversial scholars have praised it kinda. For instance, an Arizonan professor, Dr. Jason BeDuhn recently wrote a book in which he praised the NWT as the best translation. This is what you might have heard about in those annoying email forwards. This would be a compelling case, however Dr. BeDuhn also had some sharp criticism toward the NWT for it's insertion of Jehovah into the text where it otherwise does not exist. You would not know this however because Jehovah's Witnesses don't point that out for obvious reasons. I could provide a list, but facts are, BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, extreme minority.

Anyway, on to the issue of the Jeopardy Question.

I cannot find any evidence that the question about whether the most accurate version of the Bible is on Jeopardy ever occurred. Honestly, I don't expect to. I seriously doubt a secular game show would ever touch the question. Surely, if such a question ever existed, (I recieved the email months ago) it would have appeared on YouTube by now, which it hasn't, and you can do your own search, but I didn't find it.

So, is the NWT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible? In a word, no.

Why? Very simple. It is not true to the words in the original text. You see, I'd have much less discomfort with Witnesses and their bible if they simply translated the text true to the words and then took their own meaning from it. This however, is not what they do, they translate a meaning into the text when that is not the role of translation. Here's an example: John 8:58. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." Look at the "I am" part. That's the key. You see, that is a direct allusion to Exodus 3:14 where Moses asks God what his name is and he says "I am." The NWT changes both of these, John to "I have been" and Exodus to "I shall prove to be." The problem is that the very same I am that Jesus uses in this case is the very same I am that he uses when he says I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, and I am the good Shepherd among others, even in the same chapter. You see, the pharisees and such knew that Jesus was claiming to be God when he said that, that's why they tried to kill him. And that single verse represents everything that I dislike about the NWT. It's not simple prejudice or some misguided religious fanaticism, the NWT is simply not true to the words of the text, forget what the text means, it's not true to the words of the text. There are 237 examples specifically. The divine name never appears in any manuscript of the New Testament, but it appears in the NWT 237 times. It's not in the originals, therefore it should not be there. It's as simple as that.

So what is a good version of the Bible to read? Just about any one that suits you except the NWT. I myself prefer the English Standard Version, because it tries to follow the subtle nuances of the original text even following some grammatical errors. There are a few places where I disagree with the translation because of the use of specific words or phrases which I think are significant, but even in those places, it still has the notes at the bottom that says what the word for word translation or alternate translations are. Otherwise, if you'd like to get a good idea of the original text, or just a good read, get a parallel edition that has two to four versions side by side. But honestly, any version that does not confuse the reader with ancient language (KJV) or obscure the truth (NWT) is a good version. It used to be that people complained about the KJV because you couldn't understand it, but that is no longer an excuse.

So that's all I got to say about that, for now. Keep studying, keep checking. Email forwards are almost invariably dishonest. No Jeopardy question by Alex Trebek, Jason BeDuhn is in the minority opinion, and the New World Translation is NOT the most accurate "translation" of the Bible. Much more to be said, but this is just a quick post that explores a single verse, and points out the obviousness of the Jeopardy! question. Please do read other posts on the subject, there are several.

WiredForStereo

Most Accurate Bible Translation Question on Jeopardy with Alex Trebek and Jehovah's Witnesses

I was checking my web tracker and noticed that most of the searches that lead to this blog are related to what's in the title of this post.

It seems that if this is what you are searching for, you probably got the same email I did.

In case you can't find what you're looking for immediately, check the archive for previous posts and comments related.

Please leave some comments, ask questions, and be assured, Jeopardy wouldn't touch the most accurate Bible translation argument. That's a purely KJV only and Jehovah's Witness debate.

Seek the Truth, don't just accept what you are told.
WiredForStereo

P.S. I have written on this since the original post, so if you find this one and would like more info, just click one of the Labels links to the left to find more of what you might be looking for.