Windows 3 described in the Bible

An infant first sits up, then crawls, then stands, then walks, then runs.
My first computer had no on-board RAM nor a hard drive, but came with 32K of plug-in RAM.
My 386 computer had 640K of RAM and a 30MB hard drive.
My current computer has 128MB of RAM plus a 'small' 20 GB hard drive.
First an atom, then a molecule, then bigger 'things'.
Technology is only at 2004 levels as we write, give it time. Only using 'modern' words, and ignoring what was originally written in Strong's Concordance. I have found only a few of Mr Pegg's examples not to 'hold water'.
If it were only these few that I was examining, I would also just call Mr Pegg's work 'circumstantial' or 'coincidences'. But the volume of visual evidence compared to "basic words" (not translated nor interpreted ones, just the plain text words) from the Bible adds up to more than just being circumstantial.
In another of his works, he states that the Persian Gulf War is documented in (1) the surface text words, (2) at the etymology level of the words, and (3) at a deliberately 'encoded' level of data from within the Bible's words.
The first dozen or so examples appear to be 'circumstantial' or 'coincidences' but after the next 200 examples he gives that exactly match to historical records, the claim of it all just being coincidences becomes very weak. Bingo, you have stated what this is all about. The legends ARE a kind of code - due to the ancient people who were shown and viewed the cd-rom presentations telling only what they understood, and not what they were actually being shown.
By this, I mean - they understood the wars and world's 'future' history, and basic imagery presented from the cd-roms BUT could not comprehend that it was from the future, SO they justified what they had seen into stories about what they did know - their time period (their past to their present), their daily lives and where they lived.The war in Iraq in 1991 because Saddam Hussein would not let Kuwait go - became a war in Egypt where the pharaoh would not let the people go.
The twelve people involved with finding, examining, and 'advertising' "codes in the Bible" from 1958 to 1998 - are described as the forty years in the wilderness, with the twelve being characterised as being Judges. Two of these people are personally named in the Bible, with a small chronology of one person's affairs being related in the surface text.
The introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom - became the Creation Myth; The Etruscan contents screen with its Lion icon and watchman on the tower - became the "Lion of God" city, aka Ariel and the new Jerusalem, and the city of Atlantis; and the symbolic "watchman on the tower" an end time sign.The introduction logo of the RedShift2 cd-rom - became the "eye of Horus" appellation for the Egyptians. The trumpet sound heard during this intro has given rise to the awaited "sound of the trumpet" in apocalyptic stories. In this presentation is to be found the source of the "stopping the sun" and "back ten degrees" stories from the Bible - and is why some early historical people knew about the ten planets before they were actually discovered by 'modern means'.The introduction screen of the Grolier PGW presentation - derived the "burning bush", "king messenger (angel of the bottomless pit)", and the "Pharaoh of Egypt" stories.
The Grolier PGW presentation - provided the visual imagery for some of the plagues of Egypt.
The contents screen of the Grolier cd-rom has spawned the "Knowledge Tree" concept. Within this encyclopedia is from where Nostradamus was able to tell the Queen of France about her three sons - he didn't predict anything, he was retelling 'future' documented history that he was shown.
All this (and much more) has been 'hidden' beneath the religious overtones of how ancient (and some more modern) people tried to explain what they had viewed (when visited by a time traveller).As I continue to say, I am not reading things into what Strong's Concordance states as the meanings of words from the KJV Bible, because what I have re-produced herein previously have been exact quotes from his book version.
The reason you are saying that I (meaning Strong) have given or 'changed' the meaning of a word's etymology - is that the original meanings as stated by Strong are foreign to you - because you have been using the 'modern' interpretations and meanings that have been produced from the original 'surface text stories' based upon the original mis-interpreted stories retold by the ancient people (as I have mentioned above).To put it another way - when you or I, or anyone else uses a biblical dictionary or concordance (whether it be in the Hebrew or Greek) or quote the original Hebrew, Greek, German, or English texts of the Bible, we are only finding the meanings to the ancient mis-represented stories as how and in what religious context they were written (ie. the basic religious Bible stories of which we know today).
From a translation point of view, 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).
BUT the fact remains that he DID write "compact" and not 'contract' as the meaning for 'covenant'.As the original stories themselves are portraying an incorrect account of what was actually seen and viewed in the first place WITH the various religious contexts added to confuse things further, using your words, the legends are some kind of code.
Strong's Concordance is the decoding book that returns the mis-interpreted Hebrew/ Greek/ Latin stories and modern English/German/French use of words to their original contexts and meanings.
The visitation to Joseph Smith in the 1800s was meant to correct these conceptional and religious mis-interpretations, but failed.
It appears that a second visitation to the mid 1800s took place, and the work of Dr James Strong resulted.From my point of view, it is frustrating to see you continue to use the 'modern' meanings of words that directly reflect the meanings of the original mis-understood and mis-interpretred stories. I look at it this way - if one looks to a religious book for answers, you will find a religious answer, being the same one cited for over 3,000 years, no matter from what language it has been derived or translated.If you use a decoding book to find the encoded messages in a text, you find the 'hidden' messages - in this case, the account of what was originally seen and heard.
Taking the evidence of time travel into account as a reason to use the first stated meaning plus its etymological and root meaning as cited by Dr James Strong in his concordance, it is not surprising that different messages are generated compared to what we have been told.Mr Pegg is asking us to put all this and his other claims to the test.
(1) Examine the religious stories in their religious context, and evaluate the associated evidence to prove what the stories portray actually happened as said. (But there is no proof other than to say "one can not doubt the word of God" - as written in the Bible.)
(2) Examine the "revealed messages" and evaluate the associated evidence to prove what the messages portray actually happened as said. (When this is done, historical records support Mr Pegg's claims. When the cd-roms are viewed, their sequences of images match to what the 'hidden' messages say.) NO, no, no ,no, no. I am not saying that a time traveller directly influenced the religious texts personally (except Nostradamus and Strong - but they are not religious texts).
A time traveller turned up to tell the people that the previous (chronological) religion formed due to another time traveller showing a set of cd-roms to those previous people, and that they misunderstood what was being warned. They may have asked, which ones - show us what you mean. So he did. BUT they did not fully comprehend. They perceived the "false religions" theme and that the "others got it wrong", but other than that, they took this time traveller to be another of "God's angels" who was telling them the same things (or very similar) things to what the previous peoples documented in their texts. So their impression was that the prior stories (about the sequences of images and the 1991 historical war) were about their past and future (from a religious perspective, as this is how they viewed those past stories) and NOT about something that was going to occur in the future, the formation of different religions due to these time travel visits - and they did not comprehend that they too, were going to be the next "them" to get it wrong and form a religion based upon this visitation by a time traveller showing them the cd-roms.I have recently found in the Apocrypha works possible relevant cd-rom accounts in 2 Esdras chps 4, 11, 12, 13; 2 Maccabees chp 3; Wisdom of Solomon chp7. But this work has been placed in my outstanding basket to do much later. Nahthe religious stories related in the Bible have been unaffected by time travel - the stories are (were) the same to us and the 'future' time travel people' - both the Bible in 2004 and in 2012 (whatever ??) are the same - they contain the misinterpreted accounts of the TT encounter stories.
This is why another time step to the 1800s after Smith's failed exercise was needed - Strong's Concordance has the general religious meanings that you will find in modern concordances, AS WELL AS the original meanings that relate to the 'hidden messages' (that you refute as relevant).This is the same with the works of Nostradamus. A time traveller has visited Nostradamus (or he was a time traveller himself ?) and has told him and shown him our 'future' history and the cd-roms. But due to the religious threats of his day, he (or the time travel people) encoded this 'future history' in the works of Nostradamus (before it was taken back).
As with Strong's encounter, this direct change to something in the past (which would normally produce a paradox) has not changed history BECAUSE no one has taken much notice of the works of Nostradamus, or even noticed the other level of meanings in Strongs, due to our two to three thousand years of "religious teachings" - until Mr Pegg discovered them.I have been utilizing a French to English dictionary to translate the works of Nostradamus and have confirmed Pegg's further claims that our 'future history' plus the descriptions from the cd-roms have been deliberately encoded (using PaRDeS and Green Language techniques) in the works of Nostradamus.
The OT introduces the character Michael who is going to 'unseal' the book of truth. The NT associates this witness with a second un-named one who measures the temple (described by Ezekiel). {Chronologically}, Nostradamus takes over from the basic descriptions given in the Bible relating to these two witnesses, and has 'hidden' accounts of the second person within his various works.
AND then there are the illustrations drawn by Nostradamus that were discovered in 1984 that depict the imagery from the two mentioned cd-roms (which he calls the 'Wheels' of 'Destiny of Nations' and 'Time').So while the Torah itself has not been changed from the original 1230 BC edition, either Strong's Concordance originally only had 'religious meanings' - with the "encoded" meanings added by a time visitor, or Dr James Strong was personally influenced by a TT before he wrote his concordance (or was a time traveller himself sent back to specifically do that task in the late 1800s).

Sage accounts say that Moses was handed the entire Torah "contiguous, without a break of words" - this may indicate that either God or a Time Traveller handed him a scroll of words or a digital version of it on floppy or compact disk.We know that "someone" wrote the Torah - as we can read a copy of it in the Old Testament - it has also remained the same text (in Hebrew characters) since then.
But we do not know who that 'someone' was - just like nearly all of the books of the Bible, we do not know by whom, when, and often exactly where the individual books were composed. The names accredited to the authors have been added by religious scholars much later - along with the suggested dates of penmanship.Did just one person have the encounter with "God" or a "Time Traveller" and wrote the entire Torah himself, or did many people have the encounter and wrote something about it and added their bits to the Torah books, or did the story accumulate over time after the encounter with G or TT by one or many people and was the stories first told as Oral Traditions that eventually ended up as the Torah edition?So Moses has been accredited with the Torah works. But this name is an epithet of who (or what) the Moses character was or did or where he was located, just like the biblical word Ariel - which symbolically refers to Jerusalem.
Ariel (H-word 740) is the same as word 739 which represents two words, 738 (a lion) and 410 (the Almighty), and gives this city named Ariel an appellation of 'the lion of God' - which in fact refers to the Etruscan city (from the Ancients cd-rom) whose icon is a Lion - thus the ancient etymology is correct, Ariel IS literally the lion city of the gods (from the cd-rom).Moses (H-word 4872) means "drawing out of the water". In the religious context this somewhat refers to him being 'rescued' from the basket in the Nile (as the story goes) but other than that, there is no significance placed on this epithet.Let's look at the context (not necessarily the chronology) of his "visitation" by G or TT (as the individual events may have been rearranged in the final draft of the Bible {both literally and chronologically} to make the story flow).
He was tending his "flocks" near "the mountain of God" - "saw a standing pillar" - a "burning bush" incident occurred - was given two "tables". He also "heard the voice of the Lord" - "used his rod to produce" signs and the warnings of the "plagues of Egypt", followed by the "Exodus".If it was a visit by God, let's regard the evidence: Moses - unknown person at unknown date; the mountain - unknown location; the two tables - no physical evidence, location unknown; plagues of Egypt - possible logical reasons, but not conclusive as only speculations; the Exodus - date unknown, location unknown, logistically impractical. Ummmnothing here to convince me.If a TT encounter with a computer: The two tables - are the Ancients and Grolier cd-roms; Moses saw the map page farm-yard (being the flock of animal icons) beneath the water of the five gods (aka God) introduction because he clicked on the wind rose (aka Sun) with the mouse (rod), and then the Greek pillar icon (which is a standing column). This then brought him to the orange mountain. When he left the Greek presentation, he was returned to the sea/sky (aka abyss - firmament/heaven) screen. Using his "rod" again after loading Grolier, he then saw the image of president Bush (who was burning with anger) on the intro page for this presentation. He then heard the voice of the narrator as the events of the 1991 Persian Gulf War were presented (the plagues), including the Kurdish 'exodus' into the Turkish mountains. Ahha one hundred percent match !So all this information, from the perspective and understanding of the person who viewed these presentations, would conclude that it was all "drawn out of the water" sen on the computer's monitor (magic mirror/looking glass).
Moses may not be the name of the person who had the encounter with a time traveller, it is from where the information for the biblical "stories" (based upon a future modern war and events) were obtained. A list of Creation Myth imagery along with the related pictures from the Ancients cd-rom are available from the "Ancients CD-Rom Review" item in the STUDY OPTIONS menu item from the Member Area of the http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au web site.
(I thought you had already viewed this page.)

Hey Arachno.I have been checking Mr Pegg's other works and decoding French texts during the day, while answering replies to this forum at night (and, my family life is in there somewhere too).Although I am running late in doing a monthly update of the site, I have temporarily removed your words from the page - until I add the other bits that resulted from our prior and continuing discussions, etc.

I saidto which you replied "singular or plural, make up your mind."Clarification:
I have always said it is plural. Strongs says it is plural. On another post it was confirmed that it was "technically" plural.
It is religious people that believe that the word used as God is singular. By including the 'aka God' I was acknowledging the religious context.Reworded:
"Beneath the water of the five gods* screen." (*where the plural word 'gods' is believed by religious people to be the one and only GOD).

I have noticed how you sometimes 'twist' what I have posted to somewhat change the context of my original statement, which takes the original meaning and subject off-track (to any one else reading).
The subject was 'me not knowing how to build a Time Machine'. You said you know people who might be able to send nothing bigger than an atom.
I then replied with two analogous examples, followed by a direct reference to the "atoms" of your comment that you said may only be sent back in time, and indicated that atoms become molecules, and then on to bigger 'things'.What I was explaining, was that the technology of today that can only send your 'atom' back in time, once it is developed over time (just as a child learns to run, and as computer technology develops), that in the future we may be able to send 'bigger things' back in time - like what Mr Pegg proposes.I am sure anyone else reading our comments may be wondering why you said what you did, while not addressing my point that time travel technology one day may enable 'things' bigger than atoms to be sent.
In the context of what I was saying, your reply indicates that you think that technology involving both computers (an analogy) and time travel (the subject) ceased to develop 10 years ago.
Plus your general statement of "ten years ago, when the 386 stopped being used" is factually incorrect.
My children currently use a 386 in their bedroom to play DOS/Windows games and to write up their homework. No, don't lose patience - if you believe in something, then just keep repeating what you say, or reference your comment to a previous discussion (by quoting it).
I am finding (most) of your comments helpful, as I try to reconcile Mr Pegg's methods with the language "translation" techniques of which you continue to cite.
Mr Pegg uses the term 'decoding' and not 'translating', but it may be my way of trying to present and explain Mr Pegg's "decoding" techniques that are at fault. But going beyond this one example, generally, I have noticed that there seems to be a contradiction: YOU are using 'modern' meanings from 'modern' concordances that have been updated (meaning changed, amended) more recently than when Strongs was compiled - yet you are saying Pegg can not use a concordance that was chronologically closer to when the Bible was translated into English.
Please explain why YOU can use even more modern meanings, but Pegg can not, especially when you say contradictory things likeyet you say about using 'modern' 20th century electronic concordancesNowanything more updated than Storng'sis more modern than Strongs' - exactly what you are saying Mr Pegg can not do !May we quickly examine this one:
From an electronic version of Strong's (ie. using your methods), "angel" H-word 4397 is given the religious meaning of 'the theophanic angel'.
"Angel" Greek word 32 means especially an "angel" in the religious context.
Looking in a dictionary, we find the religious meaning of "angel" as: 'a conventionalized image of a human figure with wings and a halo'.
To many people who follow the Christian Faith, the image that comes to mind when you mention "angel" in an OT or NT context is similar to what the dictionary says.My question: Is this meaning the one that the Old and New Testament authors were portraying when they spoke of "an angel" ?
If yes - Why ? and if no - Why not ? Here you go again - a red herring.
I, nor Mr Pegg have never claimed that a 386 computer, whether in the ancient past or not, was made out of shittim wood.
He has written that the box (ark) of the compact (covenant) that contained the two cd-roms (tables) were made out of wood, but that is the material that the surface text says.Let's look at the biblical word "covenant" again, but first let's clarify a few things.
There is only one word defined as "covenant" in the Old Testament, and it has been given the reference number 1285 in the Hebrew section of Strong's Concordance. It is my understanding that each of our respective versions of Strong's Concordance states the meaning for this word as "compact".
You mentioned this in a previous post where you replied to my quote of "BUT the fact remains that he DID write "compact" and not 'contract' as the meaning for 'covenant'" with "yes, he meant compact", (but we continue to disagree on its possible interpretation).In the Hebrew (Egyptian?) religious stories, there are several types of covenants. The one to which I am referring here, is in the context of the "two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God" being placed in the 'ark of the covenant'.
We find this same story in the New Testament in Hebrews 9:4 "the ark of the covenantwhereinAaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant".
So just as the character "David the king" (Matt 1:6) mentioned in the NT refers to the "king David" of the OT stories, in the same way, the "ark of the covenant" in the NT refers to the ancient Hebrew box that contained the 'covenant tables' as reported in the OT.My question: A box in biblical times held the covenant (ie. the two tables). What did the Greeks speak of when they stated what was contained in this box, and how did they describe these covenant items ?Religious interpretations say that it contained two tablets - ie. the two "tables of the covenant" of Moses (as the story goes).
Mr Pegg suggests that it contained cd-roms. A cd-rom is one name given to a compact disk.We previously discussed how in the book version of Strongs, H-word 3871 "tables" from Exodus 31:18 gives "a polished tablet or plate".
On checking to a 'modern' electronic version of Strongs myself, I have found 'board (of wood), tablet" (as you pointed out) and "a plate of metal" for H-word 3871 "tables".In a book version of Strong's Concordance, Greek Word #4109 "tables" gives a 'flat surface (plate)'.
From a 'modern' electronic version of Strongs we find 'a flat thing; broad tablet; level surface'.
So the original description of the biblical word "tables" relates to something like a 'broad flat level plate' (that is polished).
Greek word #1242 "covenant" in the book and electronic versions give 'a disposition, a contract, or compact'.Both the Greek and Hebrew electronic versions of Strongs give "compact" as a meaning.
So what did the Greeks call this "compact" that have the characteristics of being 'a broad flat level plate' ?In the Greek section of Strongs, the word "covenant" is written in English as diatheke.
When Mr Pegg looked at "diatheke" and tried to pronounce it in English, he sounded it like it was written; di-ath-eke,
where the "di" sounds like 'dee', the "ath" like 'ss', and the "eke" like 'ck'. This produces "dee-s-k" which sounds very muck like 'disk'.If you believe the movie version of the tablets of Moses Bible story, then you may imagine "two tablets of stone" being contained in the ark.
Mr Pegg proposes that the Greek and the Hebrew accounts inform us what was contained in that ancient box when you cite the meaning of the word 'covenant', being COMPACT, with how the Greeks sounded that word, being DESK (disk).Is a tablet of stone "a broad flat level polished plate" ? Yes, could be.
Is a Compact Disk "a broad flat level polished plate" ? Yes, but round. I need to clarify that by the surface text words, Pegg means the basic words in the sentences - and NOT the religious story nor its religious context.
His rationale is that something happened in the past that has been interpreted as a visit by one of God's angels who instructed what was being shown and told should be written down.
The person wrote down what they understood they were told, and their interpretation of what they were shown, but except for the basis words and the sequences of the portrayed imagery, what they later related may not be exactly what occurred.As I have mentioned before, the imagery from many of the world's myths can be somewhat linked to the creation type of myth that can also be found in the Bible's sequence of imagery - the basis words are there, but often in a slightly different order.
Even within the Bible itself, some of the stories that are related by later writers appear slightly different and sometimes out of sequence to the original story line - but the basic words are still there.So the basic nouns that supply the imagery need to be considered (and in many cases the associated verbs).
This is what Pegg means as the surface text meaning - remove the religious 'story' and interpretation that may be incorrect, and focus upon the described imagery (as you have done in a later post).My initial post on this subject was about the 1991 Persian Gulf War being described in the Bible's surface text.
In the same way that one can find historical information in a book by scanning it but not by reading every single word and just picking out the numerical data, Key Words, or themes, Mr Pegg demonstrates how when the Books of Daniel of Revelations are scanned, the PGW historical data is found by its Key Words and themes (providing the imagery), and numerical data - hidden beneath the religious stories of the surface text. I have previously stated that Mr Pegg is not translating ancient texts at the language level, but is using Strong's as a Decoding Key to find 'hidden messages' that have been covered over by 3,000 years of religious mis-interpretation relating to misunderstood comprehension of a overwhelming encounters. Yes, its called decoding, and as I previously stated, Mr Pegg is utilizing the known ancient Hebrew and Greek methods of hiding information in texts to reveal those hidden messages. When someone has the Decoding Key to a code and the text has been encoded employing such things as root words, using other languages, anachronistic meanings, interpreting word origins into the whole meaning of a word, etymology, and proper English for a colloquialism, Hebrew and Aramaic idioms, Latin, Greek, and Old English wordplays, AND the person who encoded the text was of a time in the future so that the person who found the Decoding Key would recognize the past and present words that he utilized, THEN the person decoding the texts will find the encoded messages - as Pegg claims to have done. You have gone off topic again. I wasn't talking about the ELS Code in the Bible.
My initial post on this subject was specifically about the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Mr Pegg has found a whole chunk of war data mixed in with the 'religious stories' of war as portrayed in the Bible. So far I have only presented a few topics from the research of Ronald Pegg on this forum.
If you have read all 20 of his books and viewed all 25 of his presentations, and this is you final conclusion, then obviously the proof is not there for you.
If you haven't read ALL of it, then what you have read and seen so far, is only what I have managed to put across on this forum and on the PPHC-SG website.
Unless others come on and tell me otherwise, I assume that my presentation and explanations of Mr Pegg's data to date may not be as competent as they need to be. The presentation format of the web site is my responsibility. The choice of subjects for this forum is my choice. Maybe I am coming in with too much, too soon, or am missing some points that need to be said first.
(Any comments about the format of the web site, or how I may better present Pegg's work, please email to the evaluation address given on the web site and provide me with some constructive criticism.)As I have already informed you, I have already amended (or am going to amend) some of Pegg's claims and info, so for me our discussions have been very worth while.
The whole point of the study group is to examine and evaluate the claims made by Pegg. I believe that we are doing that here very well. So far we have agreed on several things, I have amended several items, and others have provided helpful comments and asked relevant questions. I intend to re-format the web site so that the visual evidence is viewed first before the rest of Pegg's harder to grasp discoveries are mentioned. The Bible story does NOT say this. The surface text saysH-word 7549 "firmament" means 'an expanse' and comes from word 7554 which by analogy gives 'to expand' and by implication 'to overlay' - so firmament has something to do with something expanding and overlaying the water. (which is later called 'heaven' but just means sky.) This "expanding and overlaying" context is contained in the associated words "in the midst" (ie. where it was expanding) and "let it divide the waters" (ie. what was being overlayed, and how it was overlayed - the waters divided, in the middle).
It is not saying a dome in any context, so your question "is there water depicted anywhere in the sky on your cd?" is voided.Genesis 1:6-7 contains two parts - one subject, and where it originated: (1)The appearance of sky and water (divided in the middle); that came (2) "FROM the waters" previously mentioned in 1:2 as both the "face of the deep" (ie. the abyss - a surging mass of water) and the "face of the water" which were "ABOVE* the {newly formed} firmament (sky)".* H-word 5921 "above" (is the same as word 1920 which means 'the top') but is used as a preposition.
"Above" in writing terms means 'at a previous place'.
So the word "above" refers to the waters that were written previously in the text, being 'the deep' from 1:2 as I have explained. I briefly summarized this in post 114 from the "A Modern Object described in ancient texts negates the Creation Myth" thread.
BUT in your sequence you have left out much information that is part of the creation story - and it is relevant and very important if you are to fully comprehend and evaluate objectively what you ask of me.
I will answer this and show you where the Hebrew creation myth as described in Genesis matches to the Ancients cd-rom in a later new separate post, as there is still much to reply to from these posts. It starts off as a woman's eye and morphs to this image while a trumpet fanfare is heard Mr Pegg used the term "Old English" to describe the era of the language of the KJV Bible because this was said in one of the resource books that he employed. I have checked it out and it is so. So it was not Pegg who decided the KJV Bible was written in OE, but some other previous scholar. I had also previously used this term for the era of the KJV B in our discussions until you informed meI then clarified my position regarding the 1611 KJV Bible by responding with So at this stage it was my understanding that you said the KJV Bible was written in -quote MODERN english -end quote; and as the 1890 Strong's is chronologically more 'modern' than the 1611 KJV B, therefore I concluded by using your 'benchmarks' that Strongs was written in modern English too.You then later said inSo at this stage it was my understanding that you acknowledged that the word meanings that Strongs used in the 1800s were -quote meanings of its day, not ours, and to apply modern usagesis simply wrong -end quote.
Which is exactly what Pegg is saying - the current 20th century words do not reflect what was meant when Strong wrote his concordance - It is wrong to use our modern (ie. 20th century) religious meanings that we find in 'modern' concordances.Then in relation to Pegg's usage of a modern 'cosmetic case' in relation to Strongs reference of "compact', you said inso now what you previously designated as Strongs MODERN english has become "antiquated english".And now you say that I haveyet it is you who keeps changing senses between "MODERN english" of the 1611 era and 19th century english which you called at one stage 'antiquated english word usage' - while using the current english (ie 20th century) version of Strongs.To clarify my understanding of the sense of "modern", I describe the KJV Bible with its 1611 date, Strongs with its 1890 date, and deem the last decade of the 1900s to be and contain the "modern" meanings in dictionaries and concordances.
So when I say you are using 'modern meanings' from 'modern updated and amended' electronic concordances, I am referring to the works of the late 1900s.
When I am saying I am using concordances closer to when the 1611 KJV B was translated, I say the 1890 Strongs - and further say that the Latin (et al) use of words in the Mediterranean of the first century that can be found in the etymology of our "modern" words that are to found in our dictionaries, give a closer feel to what the 1st century translations of the OT & NT were trying to tell us (which has influenced the 'religious meanings and context' of the stories portrayed in the Bible).CONTEXT
The Bible is viewed as a religious document. Its context is a "religious" one.
Mr Pegg proposes that this is incorrect, and that the Bible is at least, a historical document, and at most an account of what was seen by ancient people due to a time travel visitation.
Even when I search Strongs for meanings in a religious context (ie. believing the surface text as true and as having occurred as written), I find religious meanings. When the context is perceived as a historical one, the original meanings given by Strong in his book version supply a different set of meanings that support a historical context.
The biblical texts contain anachronisms. But this is nothing new. Many scholars have proposed alternative contexts and meanings, but usually within the religious context.
Mr Pegg has stepped out of the religious context, into a historical one. I never said it was. You have taken my words out of context. I saidBy this, I meant, because you are not using the book version of Strongs but an electronic version, you are not seeing the words that I am reproducing herein (ie. the original meanings of the words given by Strong), and thus they are foreign to you - meaning you are using this "difference" in meanings to doubt Pegg's accuracy in using Strong's to 'translate' the KJV Bible.In the same manner, I am doubting the accuracy in using the electronic version to obtain what you say are the correct original meanings - especially as you seem to change 'senses' concerning what is 'modern' - and, dare I say it - just like a schoolgirl changes her mind.

You mention as part of the Hebrew creation sequencebut these words do NOT appear in the KJV biblical story.
I have already explained the "dome". The "sun and moon" are not specifically mentioned. "Vegetables" and "dragons" are also NOT specifically mentioned, as neither is a "seven headed sea dragon".Going by your word usage, what you believe to be the imagery of the creation myth is a good example of a religious interpretation - the religious context of the surface text as Pegg calls it. Those meanings are NOT what the words of the KJV Bible say.
So before I can show you where the words from the Bible reflect the Ancients cd-rom images, we need to agree on a criteria, using the words from the Bible and not 20th century modern religious interpretations.Before you get too upset, I have checked an electronic version of Strongs, plus some Bibles give "sea creatures" or "whales" for what you say is "dragon", so I assume that your copy of the Bible or Strong's says "dragon" for the H-word 8577 "tanniym" which simply means 'a marine or land monster'. (As long as we are both referring to the same word.) Although a 7 headed dragon is not mentioned in the Genesis story, I propose that we agree on either a "seven headed sea creature" or a "seven headed marine or land monster" for this specific search criteria.Funnily enough, whatever we agree or disagree to call it, there ARE two instances of a "sea creature" with seven "heads" on the cd-rom - if you look at it for what it is without a religious context in mind.
The 'seven headed sea creature' that you seek is not part of the Creation sequence, and will not appear in my explanation. I will explain it after I post the Creation Myth investigation.The Bible says a "greater light" and a "lesser light" - these I can show you, but to interpret them as the sun and the moon changes the context to a religious one.I assume you are interpreting H-word 6212 "herb" as 'vegetables'.This is the text I intend to use for our investigation.

Here is the Summary of extracted imagery using the basic meanings from the book version of Strongs - and not the interpreted religious meanings that some Bibles cite.Introduction: gods - the sky created - the earth created.Sequence begins:
Dark void - a surging mass of water (with noisy breaking surf) - a spirit - turning faces - an illumination - darkness (end of Day 1).
Day 2 - the sky (where clouds are located) and water (divided in the middle).
Day 3 - dry land - gathered water (spec. the Mediterranean Sea) - let the earth bring forth sprouting grass - herbs with seeds - fruit trees.
Day 4 - luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky (which is the cause of new days): they are - a greater luminous body - a lesser luminous body - a blazing star.
Day 5 - a moving creature that has life - a bird above - a 'marine or land monster'. Let the bird enlarge.
Day 6 - let the earth bring forth - a cow - creeping thing - a beast - man (meaning male & female) in the image of the gods - a female. See the glistening green thing (like grass) for food - end of Day 6.
Day 7 - the gods now rest and end this "deputyship".I will get around to writing up the new post that references the cd-rom imagery early next week. Its on the Grolier cd. Hot off the press. Here's an idea I hadn't thought of.
Chronos says "John viewed a battery powered Sony TV with a built in DVD player sent back in time".Now that would explain a few pieces of the puzzle !

Yes, and darkness comes first. No. Like God, - in Strongs, "stars" is a singular word. "Birds" is a singular word.
The "sea creature" (tanniyn) is a singular word. It is given BOTH 'land' and 'sea' descriptions. An amphibian ? clarification: both male and female (ie. mankind) in the image of God.
BUT plural males and one female.

Strongs definition: H-word 6440 "face" {plural of an unused noun} gives 'the face (as the part that turns)'.
Plural word (like 430 God) and likewise deemed to be a singular. Strongs: H-word 3556 "stars" - (in the sense of blazing); a star (as round or as shining).
Thus 'blazing stars' that are either round or shining. The "sea creature" (tanniyn) gives both 'land' and 'sea' classifications.
Thus 'birds above the earth'; and 'marine or land monsters'. 'mankind in the image of the gods' is a comment.
Thus in the creation sequence: a male - a female.I don't mind being told that in the Hebrew context, grammatically the words are plural while dictionaries provide just a singular definition.
This is why I am clarifying the criteria before I view the cd-rom again.Final criteria
Introduction: god{s} - the sky created - the earth created.
Sequence begins:
Dark void - a surging mass of water (with noisy breaking surf) - a spirit - turning face{s} - an illumination - darkness (end of Day 1).
Day 2 - the sky (where clouds are located) and water (divided in the middle).
Day 3 - dry land - gathered water (spec. the Mediterranean Sea) - let the earth bring forth sprouting grass - herbs with seeds - fruit trees.
Day 4 - luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky (which is the cause of new days): they are - a greater luminous body - a lesser luminous body - blazing stars (round or shining).
Day 5 - a moving creature that has life - birds above the land - 'marine or land monsters'. Let the birds enlarge/increase.
Day 6 - let the earth bring forth - a cow - creeping thing - a beast - mankind (male & female) in the image of god{s} - a male - a female. See the glistening green thing (like grass) for food - end of Day 6.
Day 7 - the god{s} now restI have returned my original 'singular' words to your deemed 'plurals'.I will view the Ancients cd-rom next week and write a commentary, then post it here.CORRECTION: (for "face" I originally typed 6220 instead of 6440)This message has been edited by Eddy Pengelly, 07-26-2004 08:57 AM

When the 1995 Ancients Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom is run on a computer, after the "E.M.M.E. PRESENTS" and the ACTA/SCALA logo preambles, we see:The screen cleared to a blank BLACK screen.
Then, as the SOUND of thunderous BREAKING SURF is heard, we see in the lower half of the screen, a MASS OF WATER which is given a two image animation of its waves moving, and above the horizon we see a few clouds in the sky.
Animated over this screen shot, are the images of gods fading in and out - like ghosts or the SPIRIT of the each GOD.
There are five gods that ghost in and out, but they start on the left side, and alternate sides, as the FACES of the gods appear to TURN and face each other.
When the last god disappears, in their place the screen is ILLUMINATED by the gold block letters "ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN".
Then the screen becomes completely blank and BLACK.
(end of Day 1)The same background Sky-Sea image appears, but now without the distraction of the gods coming and going, we have time to see that it is DIVIDED across the middle horizontally, and contains the SKY with a few CLOUDS above, and the SEA below. (There are other things seen, but they are specifically documented later in Genesis.) This is the Voyage screen upon which is an icon that when selected, takes us to a contents screen.
(end of Day 2)"Let thewaters be gatheredthe dry appear" informs us that the START VOYAGE icon has been selected and we have commenced our travels - the next screen is
the MAP PAGE (as Pegg calls it). It presents a map of the Mediterranean region with the DRY LAND being yellowish in colour, and the water being the same sea image from the introduction sequence. But this GATHERED TOGETHER WATER is specifically the water body called the MEDITERRANEAN SEA. There are seven icons on this map through which we are taken to other screens.
"Let the earth bring forthsprouting grass, herb yielding seed, fruit trees" informs us that one of the civilizations has been selected, and we are viewing some of its information. When the Greek icon from the map is selected, in the Trade presentation of the Economics section, we see WHEAT FIELDS, GRAPE VINES, and an OLIVE TREE.
Returning to the Voyage Screen in order to select another civilization indicates an end of a day's journey.
(end of Day 3)Having been returned to the Voyage screen, we now have time to view what other things are thereon - the LIGHTS.
The bright white sloping computer's cursor arrow has been replaced in this cd-rom by a small bright white SAIL BOAT. But it is a two image animated cursor. When it passes over an active icon, the sail of the boat raises and it becomes a GREAT white LIGHT, but when not over an icon its sail is lowered and it gives off LESSER LIGHT.
In the top left corner of the sky is the Start Voyage icon. Figuratively it looks like the sun in the sky on a clear sunny day, but its composition is more like a ROUND eight pointed BLAZING STAR. It is a red Windrose (ie. a navigation compass).
Also pictured is a large grey sailboat that takes up nearly all of the right hand side of the screen.
It is figuratively the 'wind' from the windrose that makes this large sailboat journey to the different civilizations - when the sailboat cursor passes over an active icon and makes the sail rise.
When the sailboat cursor passes over this red windrose, not only does the sail rise, but the words START VOYAGE flicker in red block letters that too, also look like a blazing or SHINING STAR.
So in respect of the described LIGHTS, these three luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky which are the cause of new days - first the lesser sailboat cursor moves over the blazing star at which time the sail becomes greater. Figuratively like the sun in the evening sky, or the morning star in the morning sky, this represents the daily cycle during which we may take or complete another day's journey.
(end of Day 4)Clicking on the windrose takes us to the MapPage - which looks somewhat like a farm yard or den of animals, as the icons for the various cilivilizations consist of mostly animals. First described are the birds and the sea creatures. (The land animals are described on 'the next visit'.)
The only animated object on this screen is the sailboat cursor which looks like a MOVING CREATURE THAT HAS LIFE as its sail moves up and down when it darts around the screen.
ABOVE the LAND in the top left corner is the Up Arrow icon that returns us to the Voyage Screen - which looks somewhat like a BIRD in the sky. The darting motions of the sailboat cursor also gives the impression that it too is a BIRD flying above the land - its sail rising and falling looks like the flapping wings of a seagull or dove.
The icon for the Greek civilization is a Capital (a column with a dual spiral top) which appears to be coming out of the water onto land - like an amphibian. Figuratively, this 'unknown animal' is both a MARINE and a LAND MONSTER.
The other "marine/land monster" refers to the perception of the outline of the coast as the shape of an animal. Whether you perceive it as a blue shaped animal made by the water, or the outline of the coast of the yellow land mass, the image is one of a LAMB. (The Mediterranean Sea is its body, with the Black Sea its head with ears. The Red Sea forms its front legs tied together, with the sea between Spain and Africa forming its rear legs tied together.)
"Let the bird enlarge/increase" indicates that we click upon the BIRD up arrow and return to the Voyage Screen.
(end of Day 5)"Let the earth bring forth" indicates that we have returned to the EARTH Map Page.
The land animal icons are now described.
The Roman Empire icon is a She-Wolf, but it looks like a COW.
The Greek spirally 'capital' icon looks like something CREEPING out of the water.
The Etruscan icon is a Chimera - which is a mythical beast with the tail of a serpent, the body of a goat, and the head of a LION. (The lion is said to be the King of the BEASTS.)
The male and female icons of the remaining three civilizations are the SAME IMAGES as two of the GODS from the introduction sequence.
Carthage and Phoenicia have a male Phoenician Head as their icons, while the Egyptian icon is a bust of the female Nefertiti.
(*end of Day 6)Rested on Day 7 indicates that the presentation of the Ancients cd-rom is not being viewed any more.* See the glistening green thing for food = for knowledge, put in the Grolier cd-rom which is a green and silver coloured compact disk (that glistens in the light as cds do when they are moved around).
At this point, in Genesis, "the Creation" narration is replaced by "the history" introduction, which provides the described location of Iraq (Genesis 2:10-14) as seen on the Grolier cd-rom presentation.Key Word references:Dark void = the blank black screen seen after the SCALA logo preamble.
a surging mass of water (with noisy breaking surf) = the animated images of moving water accompanied by a sound track of thundering breaking surf.
spirit of gods = the images of gods that fade in and out - like ghosts or 'spirits'.
turning faces = five faces of gods turn and face each other, alternatively from each side of the screen.
an illumination = the yellowish words in block letters "Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean".
darkness (end of Day 1) = a blank black screen.Day 2 - a new screen appears, where...
the sky (where clouds are located) and water (divided in the middle) = the sky and sea Voyage screen which has the water divided from the sea in the middle of the screen.Day 3 - a new screen appears, where...
dry land = the land mass of the map of the Mediterranean on the Map page.
gathered water (called the Mediterranean Sea) = the water within the Mediterranean basin as depicted on the map that is called the Mediterranean Sea.
let the earth bring forth sprouting grass - herbs with seeds - fruit trees = once the Greek icon from the map is selected, in the Trade presentation of the Economics section, we see wheat fields (sprouting grass), grape vines (herbs with seeds), and an olive tree (fruit tree).
End of Day 3 - return to the Voyage screen.Day 4 - luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky which are the cause of new days = using and clicking upon them 'takes' us to the next screen (perceived as a new Day).
a greater luminous body = the white sailboat with its sail raised.
a lesser luminous body = the white sailboat with its sail lowered (ie. lesser).
blazing stars (round or shining) = (1) the red wind-rose that looks like a roundish blazing star. (2) the red block letters START VOYAGE that flicker on and off which behave like a shining star.Day 5 - by clicking on the blazing star with the sailboat cursor - a new screen appears, where...
a moving creature that has life = the moving sailboat cursor.
birds above the land = (1) the Up-arrow icon which is above the land mass of the map to the left. (2) the sailboat cursor that flits around the screen above the land like a bird in the sky.
marine or land monsters = (1) the outline of a Lamb that the coast makes, whether you perceive it as a blue lamb of the water, or the outline of the coast of the yellow land mass. (2) the spirally capital icon that appears to be coming out of the water onto land - like an amphibian.
Let the bird enlarge/increase = click on the Up-arrow (to enlarge and go back one screen).Day 6
let the earth bring forth = go back to the Map page, where
a cow = the Roman 'she-wolf' icon that looks like a cow/calf.
A creeping thing = the Greek spirally 'capital' icon that looks like something creeping out of the water.
a beast = the Etruscan 'lion' icon which is actually a chimera. The association of beast to lion is that the lion is said to be the king of the beasts.
Mankind (male & female) in the image of the gods = the 'human faces' that are used as icons are the same ones that were seen in the introduction sequence5.
a man = the two 'phoenician heads' of the Carthage and Phoenicin civilizations.
a female = the Egyptian 'Nefertiti' icon.
See the glistening green thing for food = for knowledge, put in the Grolier cd-rom which is a green and silver coloured compact disk (that glistens in the light as cds do when they are moved around).
end of Day 6 = end of viewing the Ancients cd-rom.Day 7 - the gods now rest and end this "deputyship" = the ancients cd-rom that has the five gods therein is removed, and replaced by the Grolier cd-rom - the other cd-rom in this deputyship (being the green glistening 'food' as knowledge for man).(C) July 2004 Eddy Pengelly

Hi Amlodhi,
No, verse 1:29 refers to the wheat, grape vines, and olive tree of 1:11 being food for man.Verse 1:30 confirms the next theme/context which was introduced in 1:12 (Key Word 'good' knowledge) and is preambled in 2:4 to 2:14 - being knowledge (history) of Iraq.Q4U -
Are the Hebrew words in Genesis 1:30 for "Wherein life, every green herb for meat" =
tavek chay cabab yereq eseb kiy oklah -
being H-words 8432, 2416, 5437, 3418, 6212, 3588, 402 (from Strongs) ?It is my understanding that word "life" has an associated word 5315 nephesh.Also, my concordance shows "every" 5437 as a verb.Thanking you in advance for your reply, Eddy