Isn't It Funny That The Bible has been translated into klingon?
104919
Hey, even fictional aliens want to know the word of God!
643517
rolmao!!!! omg thats too funny!!! thanks for the laugh.
1048270
I thik that you may find that you are correct in your assumption.  I don't think it will validate the whole Bible... unless Noah carved his name in the boat!!  But I am with you on the Epic of Gilgamish.
1172807
i am afraid that a klingon would crack me in half... but it would be fun to find out...( i'll try anything once)
65585
adam and eve although i must admit most of the time the adam and steves are pretty funny. The bible teaches us the eve not the steve.
98866
My favorite is 'To Serve Man.' \nWhen I heard the line 'It's a cookbook!' I could not stop laughing. It was a great episode. \n\n"A race of aliens known as the Kanamits land on Earth and promise to be nothing but helpful to the cause of humanity. They eradicate hunger, eliminate war, and obliterate expensive power sources. All is not well, however, when a decoder discovers the Kanamits’ true intentions. Their book, To Serve Man, is actually a cookbook." wikipedia.org
183448
ABSOLUTELY!!!   I am always in need of a Trek-Fix.  Thank God for DVD's and reruns.   It would be nice to see something new from the Star Trek Universe though, even if it came to us in cartoon format.  I'd still watch it.   Heck, they've redone Battlestar Galactica with all new casting.  They could pull it off with Trek, they'd just have to be true to the series (like not making a previously male character a female), or making Spock a Klingon.
361223
My favorite quote ever, "if good old fashioned American English was good enough for Jesus and the apostles it's good enough for me" \n\nMy history prof was traveling to Russia and his buddy asked him to pick up a KJV in Russian for him-- there are so many problems with that request, I don't know where to start- HA!
730463
actually, thinking that all klingons eat hairdryers is a common misconception, but this is how you say it none the less "▬s☻T≡╙╚§P╘P«╘"
1169574
The bible is not to be taken literally.
194860
You've been watching way to much Star-Trek
59875
Most definately not.  Here's why.  First of all, when you go to the bookstore and bye a book named 'the Bible', you're buying a translation of an anient text. By its very nature, a translation is not the original, thus any anient codes woud be lost by the simple fact that it is translated.  Next, the Bible is very old, and was written before the age of computers, so when you needed a new Bible, it had to be written by hand.  Mistakes were no doubt made, along with mistranslations.  Again, more of any ancient code would be lost.  Finally, there are today several flavors of the Bible floating around.  Do a Yahoo! Search for, say John 3:16 and you'll find at least 4 'versions' .  Essentially the same text and meaning, but one might have a comma, or the other may use an archaic form of spelling as opposed to modern.  Thus, any code that depends on character placement would be lost the instant you insert an extraneous coma or a different spelling.  Last, the reason many of these 'codes' appear to be true, is because people are very open to interpretation.  Further, the codes themselves have been found mostly by using powerful computers with complex  search algorithms.  Given a sufficiently manipulative search pattern, even a desktop computer can cull words and phrases out of a book that are in 'a code'.  Case in point, my friends and I wrote a program in ADA (a computer language) that could find 'codes' in random texts.  We even manipulated my college report card to reveal 'you will fail', which was 'hidden'.  Of course we had to run the report card through a dozen algoritms, but as soon as we 'found' one that worked we called it a 'code'.
839372
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
1125864
the bible was written by man. keep that in mind.
830958
Not only that, but *originals* for the vast majority of books in the bible haven't existed for thousands of years.  All the translators have to work from are copies of copies of copies of copies...\nOh, but of course, we *know* that nobody made any errors, changes, or intentional additions or deletions when they made those hand-written copies, right? ;-)\n\nForget about the actual content, OF COURSE there are errors in just getting what's called the bible into your hands from the people who originally wrote the books.  Anyone who thinks there are no errors of any kind in the bible is very, very deluded.
697692
So, you're a Star Trek fan, eh?\nWell, we may not find Klingons or Romulans, but I'm certain that intelligent life is out there somewhere.
1012202
There are many different translations of the Bible. Some things were left out while others were manufactured. As for my language only having 10 words, I don't think the word "computer" would be a part of it.