Windows 3 described in the Bible

no, this is wrong.we're not trying to determine what english scribes wrote. we're tryign to determine what the hebrew authors wrote. not in respect to english. english has nothing do with it, because the hebrew authors did not know english, nor was anyone even speaking it at the time.strong, btw, spoke and wrote MODERN english. here's a good benchmark for the evolution of the english language. shakespeare (late 1500's to early 1600's) wrote modern english. chaucer (late 1300's to early 1400's) wrote middle english. beowulf (1100's and earlier) was written in old english.just as an educational example, this is what old english looks like:

quote:

---

Hwt! We Gardena in geardagum,
eodcyninga, rym gefrunon,
hu a elingas ellen fremedon.

---

these are the opening three lines of beowulf. this is written in ENGLISH. it was the first english epic. as far as english goes, 1890 is HARDLY ancient. the OE word for "tache" (qerec) is "angel." why aren't you using that translation?you have to use what the word means in terms understandable today, otherwise, you're going through another language. it might as well be french, where we assume that the "taches" were "crochet" smith's brass plates were bound in a book. they were also engraved, and not exactly round. he made drawings of them. if a time traveller was guiding strong's translation efforts, we'd see better translations. he'd poke in and say "that word means computer. don't worry, they'll understand it in a hundred years" we'd certainly see actual predictions, in modern terminology, that would so clear as to be irreffutable. not this garbage ronald pegg has come up with that requires you to read a lot into it and change the meaning of words. you forgot shiva nata-raja, his father, the lord of the dance. i guess he was michael flatley, right?chaka-raja is the name of a chariot. and not even of ganesha. ganesha rides on... a mouse. he... rides.... on.... it... as in it's not used for anything other than transportation.however, the wheel is a common thought pattern in hindu mythology. i'm suprised you couldn't find more. because to them, all of reality is a cycle, a circle. they even believe it's not real, but an illusion. perhaps they think we live on a cd-rom. doesn't follow. reading into it, alot. try again?

quote:

---

Arianrhod Celtic Moon-Mother Goddess. Called the Silver Wheel that Descends into the Sea.

---

the moon is round with little pock-marks. and silver too! sounds like a cd to me. that's ludicrous. a raven is a bird, not an arrow. death = introduction? get your metaphor straight, and i'll answer that. you mean this old thing? so what, that's a cd, just because it's a circle? you know, euclidean geometry uses a lot of circles to prove things. did a time traveller go back in time and show euclid cd's of on geometry? nostradamus was a quack.here's what a google search reveals on the matter: nostradamus "wheel of time" "wheel of destiny" - Google Search3 hits. this page, the pphc page, and the page that page uses. wow. feel free to produce the illustrations though. we've been over this. you're still wrong.they were polished stone, like the book says. a covenant is a CONTRACT. and it's a noun. changing it to "compact" which is an adjective doesn't even make sense. flat. yes. but not round! people have had wheels for a long time. people have made round things for a long time. round things have existed in nature for a long time. wow, the moon was described (incorrectly) as flat, round, and shiny. got any other evidence? wrong. the ark of the covenant is not taken to babylon. it's not listed along with the possessions they take into captivity. daniel and ezekiel would not have been able to see it, as the hebrew likely buried it somewhere or destroyed it. yeah, except the mormon people (as the story claims) WROTE the plates themselves. the description doe not match the ark of the covenant, otherwise, i'm sure some lds church somewhere would claim possession of the ark of the covenant, which none do. it says the tablets were made to come in pieces. if tablets means cd's, the cd's themselves were broken. that's what it says. we've been over this. and if they weren't broken, why did he have to get new ones that say the same things?

quote:

---

Exd 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon [these] tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

---

please note: that's tables of stone. luwach (the word in dispute before) 'eben (stone). it says they're made of stone. and then it says the same words were written on them. i showed you a picture of two plates above. look like a cd or a 3.5 to you? not to me. it describes them being made of brass and gold, bound in a book, and engraved upon. no, it contained the torah, reportedly, which included the mosaic laws. the two tablets moses carried down from sinai WERE the mosaic law. no torah, because moses hadn't written it yet (assuming he even wrote it himself) um. no. the tablets moses has are "tablets of stone" or "luwach 'eben" not brass the metal or even brass colored. no, read it again. moses breaks them, and god replaces them with exact copies.and besides, if moses, the claimed primary author of the frist 4.5 books of the bible, is given the bible as a source... who wrote it? that's a causal paradox. like, if you go back in time and shoot your younger self, what happens? i thought he was breaking the groliers and ancients cd's? that's not the holy bible. he supposedly gets that afterward, right? keep it straight.besides, the ancients cd still doesn't cover israel. that's just silly. and we've been pver this before. lets see how many times i have to say that in this post alone. word origins have no bearing on actual use.in english, the word "good" comes from "goodly" which comes from "godly" which comes from "god" of course. if i said dinner was good last night, does that mean i ate god? hahahahahahahaha.ok, but the description is moses going up the mountain, spending days upon days there, talking to god, and coming down with something he didn't have before. this mountaint even has a name: sinai. every textual evidence points to it being a REAL PLACE not an image, at leats within the confines of the text.why would a time traveller show moses stuff on greeks, people the hebrew wouldn't encounter for about a 1000 years? oh that's right, because he couldn't have shown them anything on israel, because that's not on the ancients disc. right. read the chapter. just... read it. that's not what it says. god says he'll make moses two new tablets, exactly like the first. i posted the verse above. good. that's nice, but you still can't wash with a cd. your assertion, not mine. i'm simply applying your methods to english. i'm gonna help you out for a second, and give you a better argument, because this one is just stupid. no offence. wanna know how many times i've had to scroll this page in typing my response? biblion would more easily and CORRECTLY refer to the writing on the screen. the way text works on a computer is analagous to a written scroll, but NOT a book. it's describing physically eating a book. the whole book of revelation is extended metaphor, there's no reason to assume that john would use other metaphors inside a metaphor. the map and face stand out to me. there is water depicted on it, yes. but it is not ONLY a picture of water. it would not be called "water" in a "cup" because it would not look that way. i was talking about the rest of it, but seeing as how you seem to have written all of it, it's not exactly a big deal. i don't care much for a who a person is. a person's arguments represent them enough for me. i went to the page, and looked around, because your arguments were excessively weak, and i wanted to see the pictures. thank you. post that on your site. why not use modern terminology then? well, he gave a really bad description. because it sounds more like a sealed scroll than anything else. why describe something unfamiliar, not in terms of familar objects, but as if it WAS a familiar object? yes, he would. suppose your hiking, and bigfoot comes running out of the woods, and tells you the meaning of life. now, you may be no biologist, but wouldn't you describe him a little to people you told about it? wouldn't you say "well, he was big, like 7 feet tall or so, covered in hair, walked like a man but looked like an ape, and spoke perfect victorian english?"john provides no description of the computer. if i had never seen one before, i might have called it a "box with cables and lights connected to several other boxes, and one showed me pictures." i might have described the action of putting the cd into the drive, and how it disappears into the box.i would not say it was a sealed scroll. even supposing it was accurate, which it's not (4 and below round down...), it's a coincidence that all the numbers were 12's. 12 is a very common number in the bible, so it's not even a BIG coincidence. 144k being described are PEOPLE. 12000 (not 120000) from each tribe of judah. no, you haven't. you said you didn't know.

you still haven't explained sufficiently why what strong wrote is of any issue whatsoever. why not just use the most modern accurate translation? yes, there are inconsistencies.but the major problem with his method is he is NOT trying to determine what the hebrew says. we know what the hebrew says. there are people who read and speak hebrew fluently, and they're not saying anything similar to this. he is reading into it something that isn't there.how do you justify "decoding" the book of mormon, which was originally written in modern english? look up "angel" in an old english dictionary, and tell me what it says. words change meaning. the sound of breaking surf. something ancient people could get no place else but a cd-rom, huh? see the angel example above. it's not saying ancient hebrews had modern makeup cases at all. that's a silly interpretation of antiquated english usage of words. this is the word you're looking for:

quote:

---

Main Entry: 4compact
Pronunciation: 'km-"pakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin compactum, from neuter of compactus, past participle of compacisci to make an agreement, from com- + pacisci to contract -- more at PACT
: an agreement or covenant between two or more parties

---

not

quote:

---

Main Entry: 3compact
Pronunciation: 'km-"pakt
Function: noun
: something that is compact or compacted: a : a small cosmetic case (as for compressed powder) b : an automobile smaller than an intermediate but larger than a subcompact

---

just because they're the same word, and probably come from the same root, doesn't mean that they MEAN the same thing. a contract and a makeup case are pretty different objects. strong meant the first, not the second, seeing as how the second hadn't been invented yet. not to my knowledge, no. the first appearance of the word is in the moses story. as for the rest, here's the verse:

quote:

---

Exd 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon [these] tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

---

the bible code has thoroughly been disproven as a standard anomoly contained in any written text of any length. the methods used are mixed and inconsistent. for the same groupings, people use english, hebrew with vowels, and hebrew without vowels. they often include words in the original text.i had the opportunity to hear dr brendan mckay of the australian national university's computer science department speak on the subject during one of the annual southeaster conference for combinatorics, graph theory, and computing. i forget which year.you can read about it the subject, on his page, here: Torah Codes you mean like mt olympus? in that case, isn't it simpler to assume that depiction of mt olympus on the cd-rom was meant to emulate the mythology, not the other way around?besides, what would moses's mountain have to do with the greeks? why would he care about the greeks, whom the hebrew wouldn't meet for another thousand years? i thought you made a whole argument about biblion meaning scrolls, meaning round, meaning cd? come on, i gave you a much more coherent argument.and uhh, for bibliaridion, i'm not sure where "open" comes from. it literally means "little book" or "little scroll." maybe it's a mini-cd? i love those things. sailboats and birds can easily be told apart by even the most retarded schoolchildren. come back when you have a legend of a flying boat.

i might address the rest of your post later. i'm not terribly interested in really wacky interpretations of words at the moment. that's called a causality paradox. like going back in time and shooting yourself. do you die?one thing mimicking another does not prove time travel. it doesn't even prove the second was copied from the first. (post-hoc-propter-hoc fallacy) sure that's nice and all, but why would a time traveller show something about greeks to moses, assuming he existed? i'd be more willing to believe the time travellers went back in time and showed the biblical authors "the ten commandments" with charleton heston. it more accurately represents the stuff that's actually in the story. actually, most of the new testament was written by people in galilea, and other roman provinces. it was written in greek, but not BY greeks. alright. one more time. what strong wrote doesn't matter. what the scholars who translated the king james bible wrote doesn't matter. what matters is the original hebrew. there is no reason to use any intermediary steps. the most accurate translation is one from hebrew.what you are doing is NOT looking at the context strong wrote in, but changing it to modern contexts. like so: because in strong's time, and king james', "compact" meant "a contract." in fact, it still does. it's just an unpopular usage. since compacts (the makeup case) didn't exist then, strong meant the more common usage of the day: a contract. and yet this is exactly what you are doing! you are ignoring the context it was written, and what the words meant at the time. you are also very often exploiting errors we know about today as factual evidence. they are not. of the time. not today, of the time. words like "compact" mean very different things today than they used to. does it make sense to use the more modern usage of the word, or the usage that existed at the time?and modern stuff may be wrong. we know of instances in which the kjv is wrong. want me to show you one? look up the red sea. because nowhere in the hebrew bible does it ever say "red sea" once. it was a bad assumption of the translators king james hired that "yam cuyph" or "sea of reeds" was talking about the red sea. it makes sense to use the most accurate version to the ancient hebrew. strongs and the kjv are NOT it. no. you are. i sincerely doubt dr strong even knew what a makeup case was. that's a modern meaning that didn't exist in his time. sorry to dump on any mormons here, you guys are good folk, but it's been pretty conclusively shown that smith's translation of the (original) bible was plaigarized from the king james version. he claims to have been divinely inspired and translating through the spirit of god, but it contains the same errors the kjv does, and adds some bits which aren't in any hebrew text. real accurate.kind of puts doubt on his translating-from-hebrew abilities. that, and sections from his other works, like the book of moses, have been shown to be egyptian funeral writes, pages from the book of the dead. curious, huh? so the recent books, as well as the non-plate older books seem to be originally written in 1850's english. doesn't follow, logically. religous texts very often use other religous texts as sources. incorrect. to find the original meanings, you have to read the original text in the original language. not interpret strong's work or the kjv translation (a MODERN ENGLISH work). strong wrote about 280 years AFTER the kjv translation, and english had already changed a little at that point (compare victorian literature to shakespearean). his uses, therefore, are subject to error. the kjv has been shown to be in error in places. strongs only contains meanings of its day, not ours, and to apply modern usages, especially modern technology to it is simply wrong.strong's also only covers the ot and nt, not the book of mormon (for which no original sources can be shown for some reason), and not the quran.

well, i get the whole tangent quantum universe thing, i used to read scifi.however, it's still a paradox. if the time traveller so influenced the writing of the bible, how was he able to give a copy to moses as you have claimed? where would he get it from?if it's a bible unaffected by time travel, since it's from his quantum universe, it must have been so drastically different as to be useless to them. or, if they used it as a source, then the one we have today is the same bible, and unaffected by travel. (which is not your position) what's to differentiate him from god, then? it's just as logical an explanation, and neither can be dealt with rationally. the "well, i don't know what god was thinking" argument is pretty common around here. i know a few people that might. but it's not good for sending anything bigger than an atom. and yet i have managed to refute every one of those examples in the bible, and many from other sources. most of your examples are circumstantial at best, and reading into things that aren't there. often, you have to replace whole words, as if the legends were some kind of code.that's hardly plain evidence. no, it's not. at all.since i provided a description of a cd in greek, and john provided a description of something else entirely... it stands to reason that john was not talking about a cd. some opinions are wrong. lots of them get thrown about here everyday. i've seen people say certain things don't exist, contrary to my personal experience otherwise. tell you what. compress the cd in a zip archive, and send it to me. or, if that's too much of a pain, make a copy and mail it to me. i won't tell the copyright people, i swear. what about genesis 2, does that check out too? duh. here's the doozy, the torah wasn't written by moses, either. yes and no. paul wrote a bunch of epistles and letters. someone named luke (maybe) wrote a gospel and history. john wrote an apocalypse. these are not the only religious texts of the time.have a look at some of these texts too, and lemme know what you think, and which, if any, a time traveller influenced directly.The Wesley Center Online: 404 Page Not Found agreed.

sorry, time was up about ten years ago, when the 386 stopped being used. ok. one more time. and i am losing patience.you are using modern words. strong's is modern. the kjv is modern. it's all modern. you are using words more modern than strong's, and usages that didn't exist when strong wrote, let alone when moses wrote. do not record anything of the sort. you objected when i cited whole passages describing things you were interpretting incorrectly. for instance, last i checked, a 386 wasn't made of shittim wood. there IS no "etymolgy level." at best, strong's concordance is a useful tool for finding alternate meanings and appearances of a word in the bible. at worst, it is NOT an actual translation device. you are NOT getting the original hebrew, you are getting chopped up root words. using other languages, anachronistic meanings, and interpretting word origins into the whole meaning of a word is UNACCEPTABLE. the bible contains very little coded information. it is not a cod to be deciphered in that sense. and els is still bunk. then why am i unconvinced still? i have heard a lot of interesting ideas about the bible, it's origins, and its history. i'm open to a good number of them, not just the strict religious viewpoint. in fact, i am usually diametrically opposed to the traditional view. i'm very open to all sorts of possibilities. i thoroughly believe in alternate translations and texts, and use strong's myself on a regular basis.more over, i do not reject the idea of time travel, or that time travellers would have influenced the past. i'm even pretty certain that a good percentage of the worlds' religions were influenced by the same set of beliefs (and/or copied from each other).so what's missing exactly? why aren't i accepting ronald pegg's so-called "proof?" think about it for a second. the "proof" simply isn't good enough. well, to you, ronald pegg is a legend. and a code is something that's designed to confuse people and hide things.so therefore, ronald pegg is the kind who confuses people by hiding things. right? am i reading your code right? iraq and egypt were two different countries. the hebrews knew this part of the word well -- iraq was where they were originally from, and where they escaped to after leaving egypt. there is no way iraq and egypt would be mistaken. except for the fact that bible code has been mathematically proven as an aberation in any text of sufficient size. i posted numerous links to this. you can find papers in combinatorics journals on this.as for people being explicitly named in the bible... well, i have three names. all three are also names of people very prominent in brittish history. i'd tell you who they are, but i'd prefer to remain anonymous to some degree. so tell me, is it possible that at some future point in time, i'll go back and be those three people? i'll write great works of literature i've never even bother to read, and win great wars i've never bothered learnign about. right?and those are less common names. how many people do you know named david? i know a lot. hey, maybe king david is really david duchovny of the x-files! or david alan greer of in living color! maybe they sent a tv back instead of a cd. ok. lets go over the hebrew creation myth.first there's nothing, and then god makes the earth and the heavens. earth is a misnomer, really. god creates the sea. the heavens above are a dome that keep the water above out. is there water depicted anywhere in the sky on your cd?after god divides light from dark, he divides order from chaos (creates land from the sea).the land that appears then grows vegetables and plants and stuff. any of that on the cd?then stars appear, and then the sun and moon. does that happen in the right order, if at all?then god makes see creatures. including dragons, tanniyn. or, as the psalmist says, leviathan from the ugaritic myths:

quote:

---

Psa 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

---

is there a 7-headed sea dragon on your cd?and then birds, and land animals. any of those?and then god makes man, who looks like him.that's the series of images in genesis 1. how does that match the cd? remember, i'm looking for a 7-headed sea dragon, the sun and moon to appear after 4 cycles of dark and then light, and water in the sky. pre-hoc propter-hoc. it's more likely the first event chronologically influenced the second, and even that's a fallacy of logic. gimme a screenshot on this one, i wanna see. however, i think it's far more likely that the eye of ra/horus became the symbol for the game people -- especially if they were in astronomy. the egyptians had a good knowledge of astronomy, and it makes a good pun. "ra" is abbreviation for "right ascencion" i sincerely doubt that. besides... wouldn't it have come from one place? vice-versa. exact-quote all you want. in 1850, "compact" meant "agreement" not "makeup case." it's still a distortion, less so than if i just wrote "agreement" no. i am not. i familiar with shakespearean english, actually. i happen to really like shakespeare. the kjv bible is NOT foriegn to me. you are the one using the modern meanings of the words strong was using, and the make-up case one was a good example. i'm taking the word the way it would be taken by a 19th century scholar, and you're reading it like a schoolgirl. yes. he meant compact.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 4compact
Pronunciation: 'km-"pakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin compactum, from neuter of compactus, past participle of compacisci to make an agreement, from com- + pacisci to contract -- more at PACT
: an agreement or covenant between two or more parties

---

that's what compact means. it still means that today. you're misinterpretting his proper english for a colloquialism. suppose i were reading the bible in the late 1980's, and i come across this verse:

quote:

---

Jer 24:2 One basket [had] very good figs, [even] like the figs [that are] first ripe: and the other basket [had] very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.

---

well, bad means cool, according to the slang of the day. so was one set of figs good to be eaten, and the other refigerated? maybe the time travellers were whirlpool salesmen.lets look at one of those sentances again, because you've got another logically fallacy on your hands: so in otherwords, the proof of time travel rests on... time travel! thank you. circular logic all the way. either the hebrews meant one way, or they didn't. if they didn't you don't have a case. not in that respect. no. it is not. strong sat down with a hebrew torah, and a kjv bible, and cross referenced everything. i doubt strong even knew any hebrew. that's all it is, a cross referencing tool. not a decoding key. he worked from an existing translation, and one which has been shown to have errors. why did smith plaigarize most of the old testament (kjv, even) wholesale, while inserting bits not found in any hebrew manuscript? strong also worked from the kjv. but... i thought...

quote:

---

you may argue that Strong didn't mean "compact" when he wrote "compact" in his concordance, but meant "contract", because 'contract' was the word used in that day and a 'compact case' was not invented until later. This is a totally logical argument and would be correct if we were talking about any other book (and time travel wasn't implicated

---

.... that YOU'RE using the modern words. i'm using them the way they were meant to be. and i'm not looking for religious answers, btw. i'm checking the validity of your argument. and it is failing in every respect.also, i find it quite frustrating that you have no sense of what the word "modern" means, and why you need things like context. yup. i am. and i have. and nothing has seemed even vaguely convincing, even given that i think that time travellers could have gone back in time, and coded messages could have been left in the bible about them. i don't believe god had anything to do with the bible. no. it doesn't. otherwise, i'd be convinced. that's no different than saying god wrote the bible. it doesn't fly around here. even if a time traveller inspired strong... he'd have to hold his hand through every word to get it the way you want it to be. and it just isn't that way. check please! you're done. there goes your point. if it's unaffected by time travel, we will see no evidence of time travel in the bible. and we don't. so you have nothing. if it's from a different quantum universe.... [quote]the religious stories related in the Bible have been unaffected by time travel [/qs]i see nothing hidden. i see some funny instances of mistranslation here and there (like "judas who delivered christ" becoming "judas who betrayed christ") but nothing substantial. also wrong, but moving on. or maybe you're just reading it wrong.

sage accounts lie. moses probably didn't exist, and the exodus probably never happened. hey, maybe it got written because a time traveller told them the story.however, you're getting the tradition wrong. the torah was originally written without word spaces and without vowels. as a whole, it comprised a single name: the true name of god.see, YHVH was something god made up to tell moses when moses asked. it simply means "that which is" and isn't an actual name. according to tradition, moses was a skilled egyptian sorcerer, and he knew that by learning a spirits name, he could control it. by asking the name of god, he sought to control god. but god, being crafty, dodged the question.but you know, that's just how the story goes. archaeologically, we have nothing to say the moses existed, or that the hebrews were even in egpyt at all. unless they were the hyksos, but that would be ironic. this is somewhat true. however, we know who wrote the torah, at least the version we have today: a council of elder rabbis, around the time of the babylonian exile. fourth option. the torah was written by multiple authors, many of which never claimed to talk to, see, or otherwise experience god/angels/etc. it was then compiled and editted, lost, reconstructed, and preserved by a large group of people. the first 4 book, yes. by tradition 5, but moses couldn't have recorded his own death. oddly enough, this part is right. this part is not. i can find more relation to "the lion king" than i can to the cd. the boat is a drawing and it sticks out of the water. so the boat = moses. see, i can read meanings into things that just don't apply too. there exists better explanation. for starters "they just made it up" works rather nicely. which aren't tables. which is not the same as moses owning sheep, and not symbolically the same as moses leading the people of israel. singular or plural, make up your mind. no talk of arrows, and god is depicted as a VOICE from a burning bush that doesn't go away. find me such an image on the cd. mice are very bad using to tend sheep with, and then later striking rocks and whatnot. of fire? that he climbed? that part makes no sense at all. facts don't line up, as i've said before. you know, if you ignore all the relevant details and change the meanings of every word. i did.i want a copy of the actual cd-rom. and i'll be the judge. hey, you never know, i may be the one that goes back in time, right? you wouldn't want to mess that up, would you?

hey eddy. my question still exists on your site.

quote:

---

Arachno America June 2004

​

"Biblion" tended to mean "scroll" at the time, because the bound book hadn't been invented yet. However, scrolls are cylindrical. If I were talking about a flat disc, especially one that SPINS I would use something like "kuklos" and maybe modified by "helissio".

---

answer it specifically addressing why john didn't use either of those words, concede defeat, or remove my words from the site entirely.

please do not post any without my permission. if i feel the question has been answered to my satisfaction, then i will probably give my permission. although, so far, i don't think you have answered a single question to my satisfaction, so the answer will probably be no.[edit] coincidentally, i am enrolled in secular class on the old testament as literature this coming semester. i'm pretty sure that since this is at a state university, they will not treat the bible in any kind of religious way. i'll let you know if it turns up anything.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-19-2004 04:11 AM

no, what strong's says doesn't matter. the TEXT says it's plural. however, the verbs used are singular. and when given a name, the name is singular. i think we've been over this though. it's not off-topic. i just make circular arguments so people paint themselves into corners, as you have done. and the studies i've seen seemed to indicate that nothing larger than an atom could be sent, ever, because certain laws of quantum mechanics.now, this is off-topic: have you ever read timeline by michael chricton? i think you'd like it. you're the one arguing that time travellers which come from the future took back a computer already ten year old. really? i'm on an amd athalon, 1.2 ghz. and that's old and slow nowadays. i honestly haven't seen ANYONE use a 386 in years. actually, i was the last person i knew to own one. yes, but i am repeating the same arguments, and you just don't seem to get how certain things are distortions. i gaurantee you his methods are at fault. but please, feel free to test it. ask a secular hebrew person to read you what the bible says if you really want. i'll put money on the fact that i am more right than mr. pegg. all we use is modern english. i'm not using modern meanings of words, you are. you cannot take a word that meant one thing in 1890, and use the 2000 meaning of the word. you have to take the 1890 meaning of the word. for instance, when strong wrote "compact" he meant "an agreement" not "a make-up case." modern concordances have changed "compact" to "contract" to account for the language change. the word "compact" means something different to people today than it did in 1890. no. religiously, angels are never portrayed with wings, and certainly never with halos. seraphim and cherubim have wings. angel however is a general term, sometimes applied to cherubim and seraphim etc, but can also include humans. halos, on the other hand, were created by the greeks so pigeons wouldn't crap on the heads of their idols.now, according to strongs, the word angel comes from mal'ak, which means messenger. that's all "angel" means. a messenger. the word comes from a word meaning "deputy" or "dispatch" so there's a sense of being sent by someone to deliver a message. but the meaning is only "messenger." if you're talking about ark of the covenant, then you did claim a 386 was made of shittim wood. there is no code in that. this is what i'm talking about. i even provided the definition of compact for you. plastic make-up cases with a little mirror simply did not exist in the 1890's, and the word was not used. and even if strong had seen one such compact, and he meant to describe that item and knew that was the word for it, he was smart enough to know that NOBODY ELSE would know what he was talking about, instead favoring the "agreement" meaning of the word.get that?on TOP of that, it doesn't matter one little bit what strong wrote. strong wasn't even a translator. all that matters is what the original text says. greeks would have never seen the ark, nor would the greek-speaking judean authors you're calling greek. the ark itself was lost about 600 years before that. actually, according to tradition, it held THREE items. two tablets, and a scroll on which the torah was written by the hand of moses. the talmud states that moses wrote 13 originally, one for each tribe and one for the ark. arguing that it held 2 items, or 4 items, simply doesn't match this story. as i said, the no greek would ever have seen the ark. and if they had, they wouldn't have called it compact in an sense of the word. the "surface text" specifically gives it's dimensions, and it took at least two people to carry it.the meaning of compact strong's is intending is the one i gave above, from the dictionary. an agreement. my strong's comes with a pronounciation key.

quote:

---

diatheke {dee-ath-ay'-kay}

---

you simply can't ignore the rules of language and pronounciation to make your point. but, hey, let's change the word up for a few examples, just for kicks.

quote:

---

Act 7:8 And he gave him the cd-rom of circumcision: and so [Abraham] begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac [begat] Jacob; and Jacob [begat] the twelve patriarchs.

---

wow, that's a sharp ancients cd!

quote:

---

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new cd-rom, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

---

jesus must have had a cd-burner, i guess.

quote:

---

Hbr 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting cd-rom,

---

maybe they encased it in lucite or something? again. that is not the compact they are talking about, and the word is not pronounced "disk" in greek. and they are TWO DIFFERENT WORDS. not one. we've discussed usages before. everywhere the word is used not refering to the two tablets, it refers to something very obviously not round. such as the planks of a ship. which is an interesting idea, i'll grant. however, the decoding methods are simply not valid. no, there are odd coincidences, at best, between the world's religion. at worst, most of them are unrelated. like the norse mythologies, the world being made from the bones of a dead giant. not at all like judaic story. i used other creation examples from the rest of the bible, and you balked at it. but the text says certain things. whether or not it's wrong, you can't just neglect things like grammar, and order, and action. like i said. you can't ignore what it actually says in favor of a meaning you're reading into it, and then say it says something. no, mr pegg appears really inept at language. there are a lot of different interpretations of what the bible says. there's even a whole school of thought that deals with hidden, coded, messages. but it's all based on sybolism.this is completely unrelated to that. no, he's reading meaning that simply isn't there. perhaps you should look into how the hebrew hid messages in their texts. root words are not a code. no one would ever encode anything with etymology. next time you use a complex english word, ask yourself if you really mean the addition of its root words. including ones that didn't exist at the time? that's simply illogical. again, that didn't exist at the time? you're using time travel to validate time travel. don't you see a problem with that? invalid, invalid, invalid. english is invalid. no one spoke english then and there. circular logic. that's like saying "i believe the bible is true because it was written by god, and i know that because the bible is true." that position cannot be defended by any proper logic.strong's is NOT a decoding key. it's a cross-referencing tool. but you have before. it just shows that you are easily mislead. did you know that according to religious lore, angels, ie your time travellers, taught men to make war? is the rest of it anything like this stuff? if not, post your best argument. just one thing that could not be explained any other way than time travel, without reading into things, using time travel to justify time travel, "decoding" etc. uh. no.it says above.

quote:

---

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

---

it says under the firmament, and above the firmament. the tradition interpretation, the ancient hebraic view of the universe was that it was water, and the sky kept the water out. that fits this verse, and this one:

quote:

---

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

god opens the windows of heaven, and water pours out. and don't tell me that's talking about windows 3.11, because last i checked, 386's and water don't mix too well. that doesn't look like an eye of horus/ra. there are three periods of the english language. shakespeare, a contemporary of king james, was one of the first to use Modern English, capital letters. current word usages, especially colloguial meanings, often differ vastly from the official Modern English usage. for instance, you don't use pronouns properly. that sentance was an example of that. it should have been "thou" not "you" since "thou" is singular and "you" is technically plural.i'll be more careful to not use "modern" when i mean "colloquial" if you'd like. frankly, we're just using a different dialect of modern english. in the dialect we speak, the word "compact" has taken on a new, colloquial meaning. suppose strong had written "rubber" somewhere. (i'm pretty sure he didn't)now, what does that mean? is talking about the substance rubber? the british usage of the word means "an eraser." did he mean that? or the canadian usage, "a snowboot?" or perhaps the american, "a condom?" strong's is officially Modern English. however, the usages are not always current and specific to our location. in some cases, the word's are antiquated usages, yes, but still within the realm of modern english. but that's not what you're doing. you're using the wrong meanings of the words, and misinterpretting what strong wrote, although technically modern english, as current usages of the words, some of which have only be coined in the last few years. and then you're adding meanign derived from languages not used by the people who wrote EITHER text.to further prove, you're doing it incorrectly, i'll take it to an extreme example. we'll use compact again, since it's such a fun example.suppose strong DID mean a make-up case. "compact" is actually short for "compacted make-up." compacted comes from "to consolidate; combine" or "to make by pressing or joining together; compose." this comes from the idea of bringing together and making something solid and of single composition, as if in an agreement.in other words, "compact" the make up case, and "compact" the car BOTH come from the word that means "agreement" or "contract"by the etymology. the bible can be easily shown to be historically innaccurate. no. i've learned which definitions to ignore because they put commentary on things. the ones that just say "this means this" are fine, but even those disagree with you. no, he's not looking for historical authenticity. he's looking for things that might even be there -- but in ways in which he's reading meaning that isn't there. the bible does have a role in history, and is occasionally based of historical events, but it is in no way a historical document. everything has a religious message, often at the sacrifice of factuality. anyone who studies the bible as historical literature knows this. foreign means of a different language. although it seems you and i are speaking different languages sometimes, the kjv is actually in language i am quite familiar with. and so is strongs, even the edition you're using. that's hardly foriegn to me. i'm just more prone to use the right meanings of words, as opposed to anachronistic, recent, colloquial meanings, local to our specific dialect. i prefer to use the meanings local to strong's dialect, and king james'. i explained that above. i really shold start using capital letters occasionally. by "modern" i meant the meanings local to our recent dialect. this is different from "Modern English" which is the language that you and i speak, and shakespeare and strong both wrote in. as i said above, within Modern English there are old usages and new usages. british, american, canadian, and australian usages (and subdivisions of those). we speak in, essentially, slang. it is inappropriate to interpet offical, original older Modern English usages as recent dialect. actually, they do. the dome i described is the firmament. it separates the waters above from the waters below. the heavens from the deep. verse sixteen, it describes them. as in vegetation. plants in general. the herbs and fruit and grasses. dragon in general IS used. i checked strong's. but you talk about that below, so i'll come back. actually, i read all of those from the bible. tanniym means serpent, in general. "whales" is unnacceptable. here's some instances of it being used:

quote:

---

Exd 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast [it] before Pharaoh, [and] it shall become a serpent.
Exd 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

---

quote:

---

Deu 32:33 Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

---

etc. the most sensible transliteration of tanniym in the verse is literally "big serpents" or "OLD serpents" instead of "great whales." a translation would be "sea serpent" in modern terms, or "dragon."this verse is clearly talking about leviathan, who is called a great or old serpent. "whales" is simply one of those random religious meanings you're always ranting against. the seven heads comes from ugaritic mythology. the bible mentions that they have multiple heads, but never how many. unless you think the great red dragon of revelation 12 is a leviathan, in which case, john happens to agree that it was seven heads. looking forward to that. please post screenshots. although, not being in the "creation" sequence, i won't hold them as valid. how is that religious? one lights the night, and one lights the day. they go in the firmament (sky-dome) to light the earth. that's what it says. probably. i was speaking very casually.

at the same time. darkness comes first. please note that. the hebrew traditions, a day starts the night before, not in the morning. this is why bibles always say "evening and morning" not "morning and evening." this is still current practice today among hebrew. the sabbath starts friday night.ther's also no mention of turning faces. i don't know where you got that from. the sky divides the waters above from the waters below. the sky is also a solid object. the sun and moon. "and also stars" which are mentioned seperately, in plural. great sea monsters AND birds of the air. not or. both. plural, but sure. show me, and then prove it was not derived from the story of moses. i believe i started by asking you why a 386? why not something like that? seriously, if i did it now, i'd take back a binder of dvd's and a portable dvd player.

what amlodhi said.strongs lists root words, not their actual use in the text. if see the word "books" in a text, and want to know what it means, i look up "book" in the dictionary. this does not accurately reflect what i see in the text, because the text contains a plural and the dictionary contains a singular.

exactly. well, i'm not as informed as i may sound. i am however looking forward to learning more. unfortunately, introductory hebrew is full this semester, but i'm gonna try to get into it next semester an actually learn some of the language.