Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Windows 3 described in the Bible
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 46 of 90 (120059)
06-29-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by custard
06-29-2004 4:44 PM


haha. but... but... mountain dew comes in a can!
that's too much work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by custard, posted 06-29-2004 4:44 PM custard has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 90 (120239)
06-30-2004 1:45 AM


two startling revelations from the pegg site
since i managed to get in:
1. the ancients cd does not, in fact, have a picture of water on it.
2. eddy has been copy-pasting a good portion of the weakly-protected members area wholesale. minus, of course, the pictures. probably the best evidence, but still very, very laughable.
[editted so as not to look like an accusation of plaigarism]
3. and apparently eddy runs the site.
[editted again in amazement]
4. i'm quoted on the site. lmao.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-30-2004 12:55 AM

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 90 (120245)
06-30-2004 2:12 AM


an ultimatum
actually, come to think of it eddy, answer my question, since you don't on the site. if john was describing a flat, spinning disc, why didn't use the words for "flat," "disc," and "to spin," instead opting for a word meaning "writing" and associated with a PAIR of cylindrical objects containing a flat rectangular piece of paper?
answer that question, or remove my words from the site. i am not a member, and do not wish to have my name or words associated with the site.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-30-2004 01:14 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-01-2004 12:09 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 90 (120796)
07-01-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
06-30-2004 2:12 AM


"You are obviously using "modern meanings' from a 'modern' concordance - no wonder you are finding different meanings to the one's Mr Pegg (and myself) present."
query -- why would you use anything else? we're trying to ascertain the meanings of words.
We need to ascertain what the Hebrew words originally meant in respect to what the OE scribes wrote, not what they mean to us now in 2004.
That's why Mr Pegg uses Strongs - the ancient meanings and contexts are given.
if there was a hebrew word that meant "keyboard" strong certainly wouldn't have understood it when he first published his concordance in 1890.
He may have. Mr Pegg tells us that the Holy Bible cd-rom is what was called the Brass Plate by Smith in the mid 1800s, and was one of the eight 'plates' in the box.
Before the end of that century, Dr James Strong produced a concordance.
Did he see Smith's apparatus ? Was Strong visited by a time traveller (who helped him write the concordance) ?
if i were describing a cd-rom, without knowledge of what one was, i would describe it as a little wheel or a flat shiny dish.
Exactly how a compact disk has been described in other cultures.
India
Ganesha is the Hindu god of wisdom, and the first scribe and the god of scribes. He is also known as 'Chakra-Raja' (Lord of the Wheel).
He is usually depicted holding the lotus or sacred thread, the Ankus, the sacred conch shell, and the Chakra (wheel). His mount is a mouse. {sacred thread + mouse = computer's mouse and cable}
Vishnu is a primeval being — a sun god. He is known as the god of blue water {sea image from the cd}, and among other things, holds a wheel or sun disk (Chakra) in one of his four hands. He rides in an eight wheeled chariot {represents the eight pointed Windrose that 'takes' you to your destination within the cd}.
Celtic
Arianrhod was an ancient earth goddess, and was known as the ‘silver wheel’.
Branwen is the ‘white raven’. {the white cursor}
Dylan Eil Ton ‘Son of the waves’ is the spirit of the sea; the sound of the waves are said to be the sound of his dying groans. {the 'sound of the waves' are the sound of the waves from the introduction sequence of the cd}
China
The I Ching symbol incorporates two circles within a larger circle which have been drawn to give the illusion that they are revolving.
France
Nostradamus depicted two magic circles in his illustrations to his son Cesar, and he called them The Wheel of Destiny (of Nations) and The Wheel of Time. {Ancients and Grolier cd-roms}
Moses
In Exodus 31:18 he describes "two tables of testimony, tables of stone" which were later put in the 'ark of the covenant'.
"tables (3871)" = a polished tablet or plate. "ark" 727 = box. "covenant" 1285 = 'a compact'.
So, the biblical 'box of the compact' contained polished plates (that glistened).
New Testament
Hebrews 9:4 talks about this same "ark of the covenant" and its contents, the "tables of the covenant".
Greek word "ark" 2787 = a box (the sacred ark).
tables 4109 = a moulding-board, ie. a flat surface "plate" or tablet.
So the Greeks described this sacred plate (being the polished glistening one from the Hebrew story) as 'flat'.
You said you would describe it as a "wheel or a flat shiny dish". Apparently people in the past did just that !
(paraphrased) Talking about the religious tablets of Moses containing 'the mosaic laws, written by god', you say that these religiously described 'tablets' could not be cd-roms because cd-roms do not contain the mosaic laws.
Mr Pegg has traced the apparent journey of the cd-roms around the Middle Eastern region from ancient Mesopotamia to the Jerusalem Temple in Israel - via the Elephantine Temple in Egypt. Then in around 600BC the 'pieces of the temple' (the computer apparatus) were taken to Babylon, where Daniel and Ezekiel viewed them. From that point 'Christian history' looses track of the 'ark of the covenant' and temple pieces (computer apparatus and disk box).
BUT Mormon history takes over where this leaves off, and tells of the 'plates' and the 'box' that were next seen by Moroni in 421 AD in America, and then by Joseph Smith in the 1800s.
In his use of the original words, Mr Pegg has shown that the tablets Moses was said to have broken, were in fact 'burst apart', and when he received the second set, he then had four cd-roms. The other two are Redshift2 and Holy Bible. So there were four cd-roms in the 'ark of the covenant', one being reddish-brown in colour - the Holy Bible.
Back to the Mormon description of what was in the 'box' that they unearthed.
"Small and large plates" = 3.5 floppy disks and compact disks.
One set was called "The Plates of Brass" and were brought from Jerusalem in 600BC by the people of Levi.
These contained "the five books of Mosesand also a record of the Jews from the beginningand also the prophecies of the holy prophets" - ie. what we now know as "The Old Testament".
So this brass plate definitely contained the moasic law - known as the five book of Moses.
By colour, date, place, and exact content of that ancient plate, Mr Pegg has identified it as the Holy Bible cd-rom.
Moses is first holding two plastic cd-rom cases (containing the Ancients and Grolier cd-roms). He doesn't break them as in smash them - he bursts them open and views them on the oracle apparatus (probably in the Temple at Elephantine). Next he is given two more - Redshift2 and the Holy Bible.
You say "even if they're cd's, which they're not" [the tablets held by Moses], they [would not] contain the moasic law.
But the brass coloured Holy Bible cd-rom DOES !
Note: H-word 7665 "brake" from the 1995 book form of Strong's Concordance
quote: 7665 shabar; a prim root; to burst means 'to burst'.
BUT the exact spelling of 'shabar' is also represented by H-word 7663 which means 'to scrutinize' - and word 7666 which means 'to deal in grain'.
According to the concordance, they are all pronounced the same.
This means that Moses did not break the two Tables (as in destroyed them), but 'burst them open as to make them come apart' - or did he scrutinize the two glistening polished flat plates.
{I will say it before you do - or did he sell them for grain}
This shows that there are three meanings for the one Hebrew word. One fits in with the modern religious use of words, while one fits in with Mr Pegg's discoveries, and the other ?
then why did he have to go back up the mountain so god could make him two new tablets?
The mountain in question refers to the orange mountain from the Greek presentation. The "glory of the Lord" is the description given to the white highlight box that 'flashes' and surrounds each icon as the cursor is taken up the mountain side.
this is referring to breaking the tablets themselves, not their storage device.
If "scrutinize" is the correct action Moses did to the tablets, or even breaking open the storage devices, then describing the mountain in the manner told in the Bible makes perfect sense - after breaking open and viewing the Grolier cd (for example) he returned to the Ancients cd, and then went back up "the mountain".
"cd-trays are no good at holding water" UNLESS the compact disk that you are putting on it has a picture of water thereon - as the Ancients cd-rom DOES !"
I agree that physically cd-trays are no good at holding water.
But figuratively, (and most of the Bible stories are accounts of oral stories containing imagery) a compact disk that has an image of water thereon may be seen as placing a cup or bowl of water on the 'gods' altar that has a hole in it.
a bread roll will not roll, and a cd-rom cannot be eaten.
But you clarified "roll - as in a bread roll -- comes from the action "to roll." it describes the process used to make it, not it's function."
You appear to be saying that the verb 'to roll' IS associated with the noun.
So in the word "roll" in the context of a scroll (modern terms include book and .doc file) -- as in a compact disk that holds information like a book -- the action "to roll" describes the process of the disk turning in the drive, while its function is to be read "from within, from the back side" by the optical laser.
And its purpose it to provide knowledge to man - 'eat' the information and we are 'fed'.
John uses similar phraseology in Revelations 10:10 - "And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter".
the ancients cd does not, in fact, have a picture of water on it
WRONG
This is the jacket - the disk has the same picture on it, but the colour is somewhat faded and grainy.
I see a sail boat floating on an actual picture of the sea within the shores of the Mediterranean coastline.
Eddy has been copy-pasting a good portion of the [pphc study group's web site] members area wholesale
ErYeah. It's called quoting - especially when my posts contain introductions such as
Ronald Pegg's search for the original meanings of biblical words
(Extract from Mr Pegg's Bible Mysteries Confronted booklet. Permission given by copyright owner to reproduce on this forum.)
and
I would like to commence an investigation into a claim made by Ronald Pegg from Australia who asks:
"Why have we been led to believe that the Hebrew word for God (as found in the Old English Bible as Word # 430) is a singular word; when Strong’s Concordance clearly shows it is a plural word, meaning gods ?"
and apparently eddy runs the site
Anyone who has bothered to read my profile submitted to this forum would already know that I am the coordinator of the PPHC Study Group in Southern Australia - and have that web site as my 'home page'.
In personal correspondence with the administration of this forum, they were made aware who I was and what I was doing - before they granted me the current posting privileges.
Anyone who has visited the PPHC Study Group and has read several of the ABOUT pages would know that I am the chief consultant for the PPHC Study Group web site that concerns The Pegg Project material.
if john was describing a flat, spinning disc, why didn't use the words for "flat," "disc," and "to spin," instead opting for a word meaning "writing" and associated with a PAIR of cylindrical objects containing a flat rectangular piece of paper?
I do not know.
But technology shock would be my best guess from an analytical point of view.
He knew words were written on scrolls (the pair of cylindrical objects containing a flat rectangular piece of paper that you cite) so when he was shown the 'flat round compact' and was told it was like a book and contained words etc., he just described it in the best way he could - and took the messenger's word for it.
Let's look at it from his point of view (not knowing it was a time traveller).
An angel of his god had just appeared, and told him to write down what he sees and hears, and after being shown these things he does what he is told to the best of his understanding.
Would he bother to try to describe something that he did not recognize nor understand how it works, except to note where the information was coming from - within a thing 'like a book' which is put on the 'throne thing' of the sacred oracle ?
I imagine he would almost be totally overwhelmed by the encounter, yet he does a fair job at recounting the file size of the Ancients file that he was told - and describing the sequences of images.
I believe he would be in awe of the account of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and how the Roman civilization will combine both Judaism and [the original] Christianity into its own 'new' religion.
I have answered your question -- Eddy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-30-2004 2:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2004 6:21 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 90 (120932)
07-01-2004 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Eddy Pengelly
07-01-2004 12:09 PM


We need to ascertain what the Hebrew words originally meant in respect to what the OE scribes wrote, not what they mean to us now in 2004.
That's why Mr Pegg uses Strongs - the ancient meanings and contexts are given.
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"
He may have. Mr Pegg tells us that the Holy Bible cd-rom is what was called the Brass Plate by Smith in the mid 1800s, and was one of the eight 'plates' in the box.
smith's brass plates were bound in a book. they were also engraved, and not exactly round. he made drawings of them.
Did he see Smith's apparatus ? Was Strong visited by a time traveller (who helped him write the concordance) ?
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.
India
Ganesha is the Hindu god of wisdom, and the first scribe and the god of scribes. He is also known as 'Chakra-Raja' (Lord of the Wheel).
He is usually depicted holding the lotus or sacred thread, the Ankus, the sacred conch shell, and the Chakra (wheel). His mount is a mouse. {sacred thread + mouse = computer's mouse and cable}
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.
Vishnu is a primeval being — a sun god. He is known as the god of blue water {sea image from the cd}, and among other things, holds a wheel or sun disk (Chakra) in one of his four hands. He rides in an eight wheeled chariot {represents the eight pointed Windrose that 'takes' you to your destination within the cd}.
doesn't follow. reading into it, alot.
Arianrhod was an ancient earth goddess, and was known as the ‘silver wheel’.
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.
Branwen is the ‘white raven’. {the white cursor}
that's ludicrous. a raven is a bird, not an arrow.
Dylan Eil Ton ‘Son of the waves’ is the spirit of the sea; the sound of the waves are said to be the sound of his dying groans. {the 'sound of the waves' are the sound of the waves from the introduction sequence of the cd}
death = introduction? get your metaphor straight, and i'll answer that.
The I Ching symbol incorporates two circles within a larger circle which have been drawn to give the illusion that they are revolving.
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 depicted two magic circles in his illustrations to his son Cesar, and he called them The Wheel of Destiny (of Nations) and The Wheel of Time. {Ancients and Grolier cd-roms}
nostradamus was a quack.
here's what a google search reveals on the matter: nostradamus "wheel of time" "wheel of destiny" - Google Search
3 hits. this page, the pphc page, and the page that page uses. wow. feel free to produce the illustrations though.
In Exodus 31:18 he describes "two tables of testimony, tables of stone" which were later put in the 'ark of the covenant'.
"tables (3871)" = a polished tablet or plate. "ark" 727 = box. "covenant" 1285 = 'a compact'.
So, the biblical 'box of the compact' contained polished plates (that glistened).
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.
Hebrews 9:4 talks about this same "ark of the covenant" and its contents, the "tables of the covenant".
Greek word "ark" 2787 = a box (the sacred ark).
tables 4109 = a moulding-board, ie. a flat surface "plate" or tablet.
So the Greeks described this sacred plate (being the polished glistening one from the Hebrew story) as 'flat'.
flat. yes. but not round!
You said you would describe it as a "wheel or a flat shiny dish". Apparently people in the past did just that !
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?
Mr Pegg has traced the apparent journey of the cd-roms around the Middle Eastern region from ancient Mesopotamia to the Jerusalem Temple in Israel - via the Elephantine Temple in Egypt. Then in around 600BC the 'pieces of the temple' (the computer apparatus) were taken to Babylon, where Daniel and Ezekiel viewed them. From that point 'Christian history' looses track of the 'ark of the covenant' and temple pieces (computer apparatus and disk box).
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.
BUT Mormon history takes over where this leaves off, and tells of the 'plates' and the 'box' that were next seen by Moroni in 421 AD in America, and then by Joseph Smith in the 1800s.
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.
In his use of the original words, Mr Pegg has shown that the tablets Moses was said to have broken, were in fact 'burst apart', and when he received the second set, he then had four cd-roms. The other two are Redshift2 and Holy Bible. So there were four cd-roms in the 'ark of the covenant', one being reddish-brown in colour - the Holy Bible.
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.
Back to the Mormon description of what was in the 'box' that they unearthed.
"Small and large plates" = 3.5 floppy disks and compact disks.
One set was called "The Plates of Brass" and were brought from Jerusalem in 600BC by the people of Levi.
These contained "the five books of Mosesand also a record of the Jews from the beginningand also the prophecies of the holy prophets" - ie. what we now know as "The Old Testament".
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.
So this brass plate definitely contained the moasic law - known as the five book of Moses.
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)
By colour, date, place, and exact content of that ancient plate, Mr Pegg has identified it as the Holy Bible cd-rom.
um. no. the tablets moses has are "tablets of stone" or "luwach 'eben" not brass the metal or even brass colored.
Moses is first holding two plastic cd-rom cases (containing the Ancients and Grolier cd-roms). He doesn't break them as in smash them - he bursts them open and views them on the oracle apparatus (probably in the Temple at Elephantine). Next he is given two more - Redshift2 and the Holy Bible.
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?
You say "even if they're cd's, which they're not" [the tablets held by Moses], they [would not] contain the moasic law.
But the brass coloured Holy Bible cd-rom DOES !
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.
Note: H-word 7665 "brake" from the 1995 book form of Strong's Concordance
quote: 7665 shabar; a prim root; to burst means 'to burst'.
BUT the exact spelling of 'shabar' is also represented by H-word 7663 which means 'to scrutinize' - and word 7666 which means 'to deal in grain'.
According to the concordance, they are all pronounced the same.
This means that Moses did not break the two Tables (as in destroyed them), but 'burst them open as to make them come apart' - or did he scrutinize the two glistening polished flat plates.
{I will say it before you do - or did he sell them for grain}
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.
This shows that there are three meanings for the one Hebrew word. One fits in with the modern religious use of words, while one fits in with Mr Pegg's discoveries, and the other ?
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?
The mountain in question refers to the orange mountain from the Greek presentation. The "glory of the Lord" is the description given to the white highlight box that 'flashes' and surrounds each icon as the cursor is taken up the mountain side.
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.
If "scrutinize" is the correct action Moses did to the tablets, or even breaking open the storage devices, then describing the mountain in the manner told in the Bible makes perfect sense - after breaking open and viewing the Grolier cd (for example) he returned to the Ancients cd, and then went back up "the mountain".
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.
I agree that physically cd-trays are no good at holding water.
good.
But figuratively, (and most of the Bible stories are accounts of oral stories containing imagery) a compact disk that has an image of water thereon may be seen as placing a cup or bowl of water on the 'gods' altar that has a hole in it.
that's nice, but you still can't wash with a cd.
But you clarified "roll - as in a bread roll -- comes from the action "to roll." it describes the process used to make it, not it's function."
You appear to be saying that the verb 'to roll' IS associated with the noun.
your assertion, not mine. i'm simply applying your methods to english.
So in the word "roll" in the context of a scroll (modern terms include book and .doc file) -- as in a compact disk that holds information like a book -- the action "to roll" describes the process of the disk turning in the drive, while its function is to be read "from within, from the back side" by the optical laser.
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.
And its purpose it to provide knowledge to man - 'eat' the information and we are 'fed'.
John uses similar phraseology in Revelations 10:10 - "And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter".
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.
This is the jacket - the disk has the same picture on it, but the colour is somewhat faded and grainy.
I see a sail boat floating on an actual picture of the sea within the shores of the Mediterranean coastline.
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.
ErYeah. It's called quoting - especially when my posts contain introductions such as
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.
Anyone who has bothered to read my profile submitted to this forum would already know that I am the coordinator of the PPHC Study Group in Southern Australia - and have that web site as my 'home page'.
In personal correspondence with the administration of this forum, they were made aware who I was and what I was doing - before they granted me the current posting privileges.
Anyone who has visited the PPHC Study Group and has read several of the ABOUT pages would know that I am the chief consultant for the PPHC Study Group web site that concerns The Pegg Project material.
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.
if john was describing a flat, spinning disc, why didn't use the words for "flat," "disc," and "to spin," instead opting for a word meaning "writing" and associated with a PAIR of cylindrical objects containing a flat rectangular piece of paper?
I do not know.
thank you. post that on your site.
But technology shock would be my best guess from an analytical point of view.
He knew words were written on scrolls (the pair of cylindrical objects containing a flat rectangular piece of paper that you cite) so when he was shown the 'flat round compact' and was told it was like a book and contained words etc., he just described it in the best way he could - and took the messenger's word for it.
why not use modern terminology then?
Let's look at it from his point of view (not knowing it was a time traveller).
An angel of his god had just appeared, and told him to write down what he sees and hears, and after being shown these things he does what he is told to the best of his understanding.
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?
Would he bother to try to describe something that he did not recognize nor understand how it works, except to note where the information was coming from - within a thing 'like a book' which is put on the 'throne thing' of the sacred oracle ?
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.
I imagine he would almost be totally overwhelmed by the encounter, yet he does a fair job at recounting the file size of the Ancients file that he was told - and describing the sequences of images.
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.
I have answered your question -- Eddy.
no, you haven't. you said you didn't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-01-2004 12:09 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-08-2004 1:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 90 (123007)
07-08-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
07-01-2004 6:21 PM


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.
Thanks, you have provided facts here and not an opinion.
I can see that Mr Pegg has incorrectly stated that - the KJV Bible, written in 1611, was written by Old English scribes - and that in the mid 1800s Dr James Strong wrote his concordance to explain the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of those Old English words.
The correct narrative of this should read as "In 1890 Dr James Strong published his concordance wherein the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of the KJV English Bible were specifically cross referenced".
We need to ascertain what the Hebrew words originally meant in respect to what the OE scribes wrote, not what they mean to us now in 2004. That's why Mr Pegg uses Strongs - the ancient meanings and contexts are given.
comment -- "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."
I read the Bible in English - written in modern English (as you state). This version is what the English translators wrote - not the original Hebrew authors. The English translation and interpretation has EVERYTHING to do with it. IF they got some of it wrong (as others prior to Mr Pegg have declared), then the English translation and interpretation that I read may therefore NOT be what the original Hebrew meant.
It is this "English" translation that Mr Pegg is examining (incorrectly called by him the Old English translation).
He is using the previously quoted edition of Strongs to check these words and has found inconsistencies.
The OE word for "tache" (qerec) is "angel." Why aren't you using that translation?
I have no idea from where you have obtained this meaning. I am not using it because it does not appear in Strongs Concordance.
H-word 7165 "taches" is given as "qerec from 7164; a [/I]knob[/I] or belaying-pin (from its swelling form).
Dylan Eil Ton ‘Son of the waves’ is the spirit of the sea; the sound of the waves are said to be the sound of his dying groans. {the 'sound of the waves' are the sound of the waves from the introduction sequence of the cd}
query -- death = introduction? get your metaphor straight.
On the Introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom the waves of the sea physically move (two images are animated once) as we hear the sound of breaking surf.
For some reason, the person who created the ancient myth has reported this sequence's SOUND as the character Dylan Eil Ton's dying groans.
No metaphor on Pegg's behalf - he is just matching ancient descriptions to this sequence's associated sound track.
RE: Strong's Concordance, Hebrew word "covenant" 1285 = (from 1262 in the sense of cutting) 'a compact'.
query -- a covenant is a CONTRACT. and it's a noun. changing it to "compact" which is an adjective doesn't even make sense.
Strongs reference gives "compact'.
Mr Pegg is not 'changing it to a noun' - the word 'compact' IS also a noun, meaning 'a small cosmetic case' being one that is hinged, in two pieces, and breaks open (just like a cd case !).
RE: Pegg's claim that Moses had 2 + 2 "tables" = 4 different tables.
I will check this up at a later date, based upon your comments "the same words were written on them" and "Moses breaks them, and god replaces them with exact copies" being 2 + 2 = 2 + 2 (not 4).
My query -- didn't a story concerning Jacob also involve two sets of "tables": as an extra set being given ?
If Moses, the claimed primary author of the first 5 books of the Bible, is given the Bible as a source... who wrote it?
The 'future' time people who placed the encoded 'E.L.S.' history in the original Hebrew letter sequence (of Genesis).
This mountain even has a name: Sinai. Every textual evidence points to it being a REAL PLACE not an image, at least within the confines of the text.
In Strongs, H-word 5514 "sinai" is "of uncertain derivation". This means that the origin of the Hebrew word describing this particular 'mountain' is not known or is at least uncertain. To me this means the original Hebrew word does not automatically point to it being a real place.
In other ancient myths, Mr Pegg has found similar references to a 'holy mountain' - which is also a reference to the Greek mountain from the Ancients cd-rom.
(The Greek word) "biblion" would more easily and CORRECTLY refer to the writing on the screen. The way text works on a computer is analogous to a written scroll.
Not quite. Greek word 974 (a diminutive of 975) = the "little open book" of Revelations chapter 10 = the little open book that is seen on every civilization's screen. When this is selected, it provides information in a windows based format and scrolls exactly as you suggest.
Branwen is the ‘white raven’. {the white cursor}
comment -- That's ludicrous. a raven is a bird, not an arrow.
The 'white cursor' of the Ancients cd-rom is a two image sail-boat whose sail 'raises' when it passes over an active icon on the screen. It is only a "white arrow" during three sequences, being the SCALA logo, Introduction gods, and disk Title.
In ancient and classical myths the white arrow cursor has been likened to a bolt of lightning (with the associated sound of 'thunder' of the breaking surf).
The white 'sailboat' cursor literally flits around the screen like a bird in the 'sky'.
In the OT Noah story it is called a dove. Also, Zeus (at Dodona, an oracle to the Romans) spoke through the mouths of the Peleiads (doves) {= the sail-boat cursor(s)}.
RE: New Testament. "The Spirit of God descended like a dove" (Matthew 3:16).
The "spirit" = the white sail-boat cursor. {where "God" = the five 'gods' of the Ancients Introduction}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2004 6:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 6:41 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 90 (123220)
07-09-2004 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Eddy Pengelly
07-08-2004 1:27 PM


Thanks, you have provided facts here and not an opinion.
I can see that Mr Pegg has incorrectly stated that - the KJV Bible, written in 1611, was written by Old English scribes - and that in the mid 1800s Dr James Strong wrote his concordance to explain the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of those Old English words.
The correct narrative of this should read as "In 1890 Dr James Strong published his concordance wherein the original Hebrew and Greek meanings of the KJV English Bible were specifically cross referenced".
you still haven't explained sufficiently why what strong wrote is of any issue whatsoever. why not just use the most modern accurate translation?
I read the Bible in English - written in modern English (as you state). This version is what the English translators wrote - not the original Hebrew authors. The English translation and interpretation has EVERYTHING to do with it. IF they got some of it wrong (as others prior to Mr Pegg have declared), then the English translation and interpretation that I read may therefore NOT be what the original Hebrew meant.
It is this "English" translation that Mr Pegg is examining (incorrectly called by him the Old English translation).
He is using the previously quoted edition of Strongs to check these words and has found inconsistencies.
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?
I have no idea from where you have obtained this meaning. I am not using it because it does not appear in Strongs Concordance.
H-word 7165 "taches" is given as "qerec from 7164; a knob or belaying-pin (from its swelling form).
look up "angel" in an old english dictionary, and tell me what it says. words change meaning.
On the Introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom the waves of the sea physically move (two images are animated once) as we hear the sound of breaking surf.
For some reason, the person who created the ancient myth has reported this sequence's SOUND as the character Dylan Eil Ton's dying groans.
No metaphor on Pegg's behalf - he is just matching ancient descriptions to this sequence's associated sound track.
the sound of breaking surf. something ancient people could get no place else but a cd-rom, huh?
Strongs reference gives "compact'.
Mr Pegg is not 'changing it to a noun' - the word 'compact' IS also a noun, meaning 'a small cosmetic case' being one that is hinged, in two pieces, and breaks open (just like a cd case !).
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.
I will check this up at a later date, based upon your comments "the same words were written on them" and "Moses breaks them, and god replaces them with exact copies" being 2 + 2 = 2 + 2 (not 4).
My query -- didn't a story concerning Jacob also involve two sets of "tables": as an extra set being given ?
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 'future' time people who placed the encoded 'E.L.S.' history in the original Hebrew letter sequence (of Genesis).
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
In Strongs, H-word 5514 "sinai" is "of uncertain derivation". This means that the origin of the Hebrew word describing this particular 'mountain' is not known or is at least uncertain. To me this means the original Hebrew word does not automatically point to it being a real place.
In other ancient myths, Mr Pegg has found similar references to a 'holy mountain' - which is also a reference to the Greek mountain from the Ancients cd-rom.
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?
Not quite. Greek word 974 (a diminutive of 975) = the "little open book" of Revelations chapter 10 = the little open book that is seen on every civilization's screen. When this is selected, it provides information in a windows based format and scrolls exactly as you suggest.
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.
The white 'sailboat' cursor literally flits around the screen like a bird in the 'sky'.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-08-2004 1:27 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-13-2004 9:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 90 (124210)
07-13-2004 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
07-09-2004 6:41 AM


Come back when you have a legend of a flying boat.
I'm back
Egyptian Pyramid text: (extract) Utterance 267 writes:
He flies as a bird, and he settles as a beetle on an empty seat that is in the ship of Re'. He rows in the sky in your ship, O Re', and he comes to land in your ship, O Re'. When you ascend out of the horizon, he is there with his staff in his hand, the navigator of your ship, O Re'.
"He rows in the sky in your ship" = a boat rowing in the sky = a legend of a flying boat.
"Flies as a bird" = the movement around the screen of the white sail-boat cursor.
"Settles as a beetle" = settle on the red wind-rose (that looked like a beetle to the ancient Egyptians).
"comes to land in your ship" = comes to the Map Page (earth/land) after travelling in 'your ship'.
"Your ship" = the large sail boat on the Voyage page (sky/sea page).
"Ascend out of the horizon" = move the white sail boat up above the water towards the red wind-rose.
The "navigator of your ship" = the person who operates the computer.
"He is there with his staff in his hand" = he is there with the mouse (and cable) in his hand, which operates the cursor as just described in the story.
The following extracts are from various myths and legends that incorporate descriptions of the "ship" on the 'sea/sky' page from the Ancients cd-rom.
Sumerian myth writes:
Inanna was an earth goddess. She was also known as Ishtar by the Babylonians and Tamar by the Hebrews. She decided to travel to the underworld to see her sister who was the Queen of the Underworld. She had to pass through a series of seven gates.
In another myth she went to acquire the ME, or decrees of civilization, which are similar to the Tablets of Destiny from the domain of the god Enki. She travelled there in her ship, the Boat of Heaven.
Ashur was a Chief deity. He has the attributes of the Babylonian Anu and is similar to the Hebrew Yahweh. Ashur is the Lord of the Four Cardinal Points, and has four faces; the bull, eagle, lion, and man. His emblem is a winged disk. Upon the Tablets of Fate is written the destiny of the world.
The "underworld" and the "Queen of the underworld" = the Egyptian page and the bust of Nefertiti thereon.
"A series of seven gates" = the seven icons from the map page. The 7th is the Egyptian icon.
The "decrees of civilization" = an ancient name given to the Ancients cd-rom.
The "Boat of Heaven" = the ship on the Voyage screen (sea/sky page).
The "Four Cardinal Points = the wind-rose.
The four faces "bull, eagle, lion, and man" = the lion, calf, man, and capital (like eagle wings) icons from the Map Page.
Egyptian myth writes:
Bacchus; also known as Dionysus by the Greeks. A nature god. During one of his travels by ship the sailors threatened to sell him into slavery. To save himself he added music to the air and turned himself into a ferocious lion. In an early representation he is shown as a pillar of stone.
"Music to the air" = the musical soundtrack of the cd-rom.
A "ferocious lion" = the chimera icon (the lion).
A "pillar of stone" = the capital icon, which is a pillar of stone.
Greek legend writes:
Artemis (also known as Diana by the Romans) was called the Goddess of Light. She is often represented in a chariot drawn by two white stags. She sent either calm seas or violent storms to immobilize Agamemnon’s ships.
Helios was the sun god, and was usually represented as a charioteer driving the sun across the sky each day. What is said to have driven this sun chariot were ‘white horses’.
The "Light" and the "sun chariot" = the red wind-rose, perceived as the sun. Clicking on this icon make you 'travel' to the map page.
"Two white stags" and "white horses" = the two versions of the white sail-boat cursor - an analogy: comparing sail boats and the wind that drives them, with chariots and the horses that drive them.
"Violent storms" = the perception that clicking on the wind-rose has produced violent winds which blows the 'sailboat' to the map page.
The "chariot drawn by two white stags" is an ancient concept describing the 'vehicle' and what takes us to the next screen - as is "a charioteer driving the sun across the sky".
Buddhism writes:
One division of learning is called the "Mahayana" which means 'Great Vehicle' and is associated with 'the raft or ship' which carries us across the ocean of this world.
The "raft or ship which carries us across the ocean of this world" = the large sailboat that carries us across the water to the map page.
New Testament writes:
He was in the ship, and there were also with him other little ships. And there arose a great storm of wind (Mark 4:36-37); the Spirit of God descended like a dove (Matthew 3:16). And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a shipAndhe went up into a mountain apart to prayBut the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary " (Matthew 14:22-25)
The "ship" and "into the ship" and "ship was now in the midst of the sea" = the large sailboat on the sea (and sky page).
"Also with him other little ships" = the two versions of the white sail boat cursor.
A "great storm of wind" and "the wind was contrary" = the red wind-rose (creating wind or a storm).
The "Spirit of God descended like a dove" = the white sailboat cursor moved like a dove (colour and movement).
"Up into a mountain" = the orange mountain from the Greek contents page.
The following imagery is described in the Muslim Koran. (English translation)
Koran writes:
K 16:14 Behold the ships ploughing their course through its waters.
K 42:32 And among His signs are the ships which sail like mountains upon the ocean. If He will, He calms the wind, so that they lie motionless upon its bosom (surely there are signs in this for steadfast men who render thanks)...
K 31:31 Do you not see how the ships speed upon the ocean by God's grace, so that He may reveal to you His wonders? Surely there are signs in this for the steadfast, thankful man.
K 52:1 By the Mountain, and by the Scripture penned on unrolled parchment; by the Visited House, the Lofty Vault, and the swelling sea, your Lord's punishment shall surely come to pass!
"Ships which sail like mountains upon the ocean" = the large size of the sailboat from the sea/sky page.
"He calms the wind, so that they lie motionless" = the perception that the wind is not blowing and the boat is not moving, due to the images being stationary on the screen.
"See how the ships speed upon the ocean" = the fast movement of the sail boat cursor 'ships' across the sea.
By the Mountain" refers to the mountain from the presentation.
"By the Scripture penned on unrolled parchment" = the little open book that is seen in each civilization.
"The Lofty Vault, and the swelling sea" = the sky and sea from the voyage screen (sea/sky page).
"The visited house" = the middle building (Everyday Life icon) from the Etruscan civilization.
RE: In other ancient myths, Mr Pegg has found similar references to a 'holy mountain' - which is also a reference to the Greek mountain from the Ancients cd-rom.
query -- 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?
Yes, probably this was behind the idea to use the Greek citadel as the image for the 'contents page' for the Greek civilization when it was made in 1995. But at that time they were not aware that the cd-rom would be sent back to the past.
Besides, what would Moses's mountain have to do with the greeks?
The Greek contents page is the only page that shows an active icon as a shaded area with an outer white border*, as the 'spirit of god' (white sailboat cursor) moves over them. It was a visual thing that obviously took their attention.
To the ancient Hebrews, this was 'the glory of God' that went up and down the mountain.
(* The active icons on the Etruscan page (the Lion city) are highlighted with a white area, but no shading nor border.)
Why would he care about the greeks, whom the hebrew wouldn't meet for another thousand years?
It would be the Greek civilization that would write the New Testament - a document that created a new religion, Christianity, in opposition to the existing Hebrew faith.
This is to do with the theme of religious warnings about 'false religions' that is found in the Bible. For example, the religious beast that lasts 1,260 years {Daniel, I think} refers to the 1,260 years of the Holy Roman Church from 546 to 1806 AD.
You still haven't explained sufficiently why what Strong wrote is of any issue whatsoever. Why not just use the most modern accurate translation?
You gave the answer yourself
Words change meaning.
Therefore, the "modern accurate translation" (that you prefer to use) is using the 'modern translation' and not the original meanings that were current when the KJV Bible and Strong's Concordance were written.
You refer to this fact when you cited
interpretation of antiquated English usage of words
But that "antiquated English usage of words" is what was understood when the KJV Bible and Strong's Concordance were written.
Maybe I haven't presented Mr Pegg's reasons for using Strong's Concordance clearly enough, but in your own three words - "words change meaning" - you have hit the nail on the head.
The KJV Bible uses antiquated English usage of words. Dr James Strong wrote his concordance in reference to these antiquated English words.
Therefore to establish the original meanings of the English words used in the KJV Bible, we need to refer to the meanings given by Dr James Strong that were written specifically for that version of the Bible.
Mr Pegg is using the concordance that was written specifically for the KJV Bible - you are not, hence the different "modern" meanings that you are finding.
Ronald Pegg writes:
Throughout my Study I continually questioned the original meanings of the Bible’s words. This was due to comments such as;
A) . The Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version, 1952) comments about the Old English of the King James Version of 1611;
[page iii] . Yet the King James Version has grave defects.
[page vi] . the change in English usage; many forms of expression have become archaic (eg. thou, thee, and verb endings -est and edst); other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader; and the greatest problem is the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. There are more than three hundred words which have substantially different meanings (to the original Old English words).
B) . As part of the Eight Translation New Testament (Tyndale House Publishers Inc, Illinois, 1974) P.W. Comfort says in his "Guide to the Ancient Manuscripts";
The history of the transmission of the text of the Greek New Testament is a record of expansion and corruption. Generally speaking, the later manuscripts (ie. those after the sixth century) are more corrupt than the earlier ones. The Greek text underlying the King James Version popularly called the Textus Receptus, is a text which contains a vast culmination of textual corruption. Most scholars (for the last 100 years) have been convinced, on the basis of both theory and praxis, that the Textus Receptus is corrupt -ie. it does not adequately present the text written by the God-inspired, New Testament authors.
It was these other scholars who alerted Mr Pegg to the fact that 'modern' translations and interpretations of the KJV Bible words may not be representing what was originally intend by the ancient Hebrew and Greek authors.
To me it is obviously incorrect to use 'modern' translations and interpretations of words that we know to be possibly erroneous or plainly wrong.
S0 - (in Mr Pegg's studies) why not use the modern translation ? - because it may be wrong*.
SO - why use Strong's Concordance to obtain the meanings for the KJV Bible English words ? - because it was written specifically for the KJV Bible and contains the contemporary word meanings of the time.
* There are more than three hundred (modern) words which have substantially different meanings to the original Old English words.
These apparently include the ones that during our discussions to date, differ to what Dr James Strong has catalogued, as you are using the 'modern' meanings and not the 1611AD contemporary meanings for the KJV English Bible.
How do you justify "decoding" the book of Mormon, which was originally written in modern English?
Do you mean the writings of Mormon, consisting of nine chapters in the LDS Bible, or the general name of the Bible of the Latter Day Saints known as 'The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ ?
The earlier books in the Mormon Bible originated from Jerusalem in 600BC and were completed in 421AD in America (if I understand the introduction to the Mormon Bible correctly).
In any case, just as the KJV Bible is available now in English but was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek, the "Mormon Bible" was translated from another language(s ?) into English by Joseph Smith in the mid 1800s.
And just as the KJV Bible contains the 'antiquated English language' discussed above, so too does the English translation of the Mormon Bible.
The Mormon Faith, as does the Christian Faith, uses the Old Testament as a historical/religious basis - as does the Muslim Faith of circa 600AD.
Therefore, all of the works relating to the OT stories that are retold in each of these subsequent faiths, are reporting (and have therefore been influenced by) the images from the Ancients cd-rom.
To put it another way, the mountain, sailboat, or scroll (book) that are referred to in the later faith's stories - are referring to the same imagery from the cd-rom. Each may have expressed these "images" in a different language and at a different period of history, but they are all referring to the same source.
To find the original meanings of their texts we have to look through the religious 'modern' translations and interpretations, and use Strong's Concordance to obtain the contemporary meanings (circa 1800) of the 'modern' English words that we now read in the OT, NT, Koran, and Mormon Bible.
A contract and a makeup case (a compact) are pretty different objects. Strong meant the first, not the second.
Then why does he state "compact" and not 'contract' ?
Strong's Concordance. {not a modern up-dated version} "Covenant" H-word 1285 writes:
from 1262 (in the sense of cutting {like 1254}); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh).
H-word 1262 is a prim. root meaning to select.
H-word 1254 is a prim. root meaning (absolutely) to create.
So investigating the etymology and 'feel' of the English word "covenant" used in the KJV Bible, we find;
H-word 1285 gives a compact because made by passing between pieces of flesh - from a word meaning 'to select' in the sense of 'cutting' - like to 'absolutely create'.
Is a 'contract' or a "compact" disk being described by the origins cited by Dr James Strong ?
A compact disk is "created" by "cutting" the digital data into an area "between pieces" of thin disks of plastic.
To me, from his citations, Strong seems to be describing a "compact" disk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 07-09-2004 6:41 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 07-14-2004 12:10 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 90 (124338)
07-14-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Eddy Pengelly
07-13-2004 9:10 AM


i might address the rest of your post later. i'm not terribly interested in really wacky interpretations of words at the moment.
Yes, probably this was behind the idea to use the Greek citadel as the image for the 'contents page' for the Greek civilization when it was made in 1995. But at that time they were not aware that the cd-rom would be sent back to the past.
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)
The Greek contents page is the only page that shows an active icon as a shaded area with an outer white border*, as the 'spirit of god' (white sailboat cursor) moves over them. It was a visual thing that obviously took their attention.
To the ancient Hebrews, this was 'the glory of God' that went up and down the mountain.
(* The active icons on the Etruscan page (the Lion city) are highlighted with a white area, but no shading nor border.)
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.
It would be the Greek civilization that would write the New Testament - a document that created a new religion, Christianity, in opposition to the existing Hebrew faith.
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.
quote:
You still haven't explained sufficiently why what Strong wrote is of any issue whatsoever. Why not just use the most modern accurate translation?
You gave the answer yourself
quote:
Words change meaning.
Therefore, the "modern accurate translation" (that you prefer to use) is using the 'modern translation' and not the original meanings that were current when the KJV Bible and Strong's Concordance were written.
You refer to this fact when you cited
quote:
interpretation of antiquated English usage of words
But that "antiquated English usage of words" is what was understood when the KJV Bible and Strong's Concordance were written.
Maybe I haven't presented Mr Pegg's reasons for using Strong's Concordance clearly enough, but in your own three words - "words change meaning" - you have hit the nail on the head.
The KJV Bible uses antiquated English usage of words. Dr James Strong wrote his concordance in reference to these antiquated English words.
Therefore to establish the original meanings of the English words used in the KJV Bible, we need to refer to the meanings given by Dr James Strong that were written specifically for that version of the Bible.
Mr Pegg is using the concordance that was written specifically for the KJV Bible - you are not, hence the different "modern" meanings that you are finding.
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:
Then why does he state "compact" and not 'contract' ?
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.
It was these other scholars who alerted Mr Pegg to the fact that 'modern' translations and interpretations of the KJV Bible words may not be representing what was originally intend by the ancient Hebrew and Greek authors.
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.
S0 - (in Mr Pegg's studies) why not use the modern translation ? - because it may be wrong*.
SO - why use Strong's Concordance to obtain the meanings for the KJV Bible English words ? - because it was written specifically for the KJV Bible and contains the contemporary word meanings of the time.
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.
These apparently include the ones that during our discussions to date, differ to what Dr James Strong has catalogued, as you are using the 'modern' meanings and not the 1611AD contemporary meanings for the KJV English Bible.
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.
the "Mormon Bible" was translated from another language(s ?) into English by Joseph Smith in the mid 1800s.
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.
The Mormon Faith, as does the Christian Faith, uses the Old Testament as a historical/religious basis - as does the Muslim Faith of circa 600AD.
Therefore, all of the works relating to the OT stories that are retold in each of these subsequent faiths, are reporting (and have therefore been influenced by) the images from the Ancients cd-rom.
To put it another way, the mountain, sailboat, or scroll (book) that are referred to in the later faith's stories - are referring to the same imagery from the cd-rom. Each may have expressed these "images" in a different language and at a different period of history, but they are all referring to the same source.
doesn't follow, logically. religous texts very often use other religous texts as sources.
To find the original meanings of their texts we have to look through the religious 'modern' translations and interpretations, and use Strong's Concordance to obtain the contemporary meanings (circa 1800) of the 'modern' English words that we now read in the OT, NT, Koran, and Mormon Bible.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-13-2004 9:10 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-15-2004 4:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 90 (124665)
07-15-2004 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by arachnophilia
07-14-2004 12:10 AM


That's called a causality paradox. like going back in time and shooting yourself. do you die?
If you are referring to the general uninformed paradoxial argument, then NO - you do not die.
But to which YOU do you refer ?
Let's say, that from the year 2012 you come back and shoot 'yourself' dead in 2004.
To answer your question, you first need to understand that the 8 year older you is an 'external intruder' to the 2004 time line AND has LEFT the 2012 time line.
So anything that happens to the 8 year older 'you' now in 2004 will not effect the future you (2004-2012) from the original time line, but of course, if the 8 year older you dies in 2004 or later while here, then this 'intruder you' to the 2004 time line is dead.
On the original 2012 time line (from whence you came), you would have 'left the building' so to speak - you would not be there any more - because you are back in 2004.
But back to the original 2004 'you'.
If you (the one from 2012) shoots the 2004 'you', that 2004 'you' is dead - but the 2012 'you' is still there - but 8 years older.
Now, if you do exactly the same things as the previous 2004 'you' did, then everything will be the same - except you are 8 years older.
But if you change things (probably the reason for going back) then the future from that point in 2004 will be different. This would CHANGE history from 2004 onwards - but if you do that, this is when the general "paradox" kicks in.
Now, if you go straight back to your point of origin (time and place) one second after originally leaving, then the original 8 year older 'you' is back - but now as an 'external intruder' to the 2012 time line, just as anyone else who would be 'brought forward' to a future time would be.
YOU would still be alive - remembering all your life's history, including the back step event from the original time line 2004 to 2012 - but as the 2004 'you' died in 2004 there would not be any history of 'you' for that period. You would still exist (the 8 year older you), but no one would know who you are (except when your personal records up to 2004 when you were killed are viewed). In this case, you would only be able to return to the future if you had a time machine yourself, taken with you when you first back-stepped in 2012.
If no personal time machine, then as you have changed history substantially, then there may not be anyone in the future that knows you are back in the past (or even time travel may not have been invented yet at that future 2012 time) - hence you would be stranded in the 'new' 2004 time line. But YOU would still be there (8 years older).
So travelling in time is not the paradox - the "time traveller" will still exist where/when ever he is - it is what you do when you are visiting past times that causes the problems.
Changing the past is not the best thing to do, as it will change the future - but there is another option that will alter the future, but not change the past - and derives no paradox if done carefully.
Mr Pegg believes that the back steps to the past have been deliberately done as to not "change" the time line of 5000BC to 2002AD, but to alert us to an original "mistake" that caused the religions to form. Once this mistake is examined, and time travel is technologically mastered, then the back steps are undertaken to correct the documented mistakes, but not to ERASE them, as doing that would change history completely. This is why the chronology of back step 'mistakes' are "encoded" in ancient texts as warnings of future religions forming - they have now been revealed because we have past 1990 computer technology and the events described in the Bible (for example) have now actually occurred and are documented in our history books - the same books used by the 'future' time traveller to obtain his data.
In the 2012 example, if 'you' came back to the 2004 'you' not to kill yourself, but to give a warning, assistance, or to add further 'warnings' to existing texts about past mistakes, then this would not change neither the past, present, or future, as the technology (and decoding key) available to read/view the 'encoded' texts will not be revealed or understood to scholars until they actually happen in the future (as the time traveller knew they would - as they are documented events of his history {from 2012}). In this case you would be able to return to your future start point with or without a personal time machine.
(Based upon Mr Pegg's personal correspondence) I believe that the time line we were in as at 2001 was the second to last 'loop' of the 5000BC to 2002AD 'correction' cycle.
Each correction 'loop' can not go back prior to the previous 'correction 'loop' or it will erase whatever history has already occurred - in computing I think they call it nesting.
Pegg's work provides us with the warning - 'Do not go back and change the past - visit it discretely - maybe make minor adjustments - but do not go back prior to the last back-step'.
But why would a time traveller show something about
I personally do not know why or what the time traveller was thinking, and I do not know how to build a time machine. But this isn't the point of Mr Pegg's discoveries.
I am examining his claims and discussing the evidence presented - time travel seems to be the most prominent conclusion from the evidence. I can not think of anything else at the moment that would account for modern history and descriptions of images from particular cd-roms plus a computer system being documented in many, many, many ancient texts from all around the world and at different times.
Asking me 'Why did Moses or John describe a cd-rom in one way and not another' is off topic.
If you want my opinion I will give it, but it will only be as relevant as yours, or anyone else. My opinion may not give the answers you feel you need to hear about Pegg's work - just as some of your questions, opinions, and off-topic 'comments' may not influence my beliefs. BUT my discussions on this forum to date plus the sharing of positive comments from various contributors have put some of Mr Pegg's research and methods into perspective for me - and given me several things to follow up, and to clarify.
I like to keep things fairly simple. If someone says "extract the sequence of images from the world's various creation myths, then view the Ancients cd-rom, and tell me what you see", I would do this to try to prove them wrong (or to find out what the heck they are talking about).
But it would be a fair examination of the evidence based upon what is in front of me, and not what my, yours, or Pegg's opinion is.
When I first sat in front of the Ancients cd-rom, with Genesis chapter 1 from the OT in my other hand, I was to check off the images from the screen as they appear to the words from the Bible - I was expecting maybe one or two "coincidences".
But just as the Bible (and creation myth generally) describes a particular sequence of images, these images appeared on the computer monitor before my eyes.
I then did this same exercise with the Atlantis myth, then Daniel and Ezekiels beasts and temple measurements, etc., etc.
Pegg's says that these descriptions match to the images - they do.
His conclusion is that time travel is responsible. In his other works, he presents the rest of the evidence to support his claims and this conclusion.
Some of it checks out, some of it falls short.
Until I personally see a working time machine, I too will probably not be 100 percent convinced - and even then I may still never know 'Why a time traveller said or showed someone something'.
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.
Yes. I found this out when I read Mr Pegg's report on the NT. It contradicts what I was led to believe as a young boy at school. Even the perceived chronology that the Gospels are the first witnesses is incorrect.
It seems that the Roman person called Paul (Saul) {the one who was against the Christians} wrote over half of the NT.
Sounds like a Roman religious public relations book to me - to influence the Hebrews and the original Christians away from their basic beliefs.
-- Other bits being investigated, or put into my 'outstanding' pile --

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 07-14-2004 12:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2004 6:12 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Brad
Member (Idle past 4788 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 56 of 90 (124671)
07-15-2004 6:38 AM


um...
Maybe I missed this, the posts got sort of long winded and started running together, so sorry if this has been addressed. I used to have a 386 laptop computer, and if I recall correctly the battery life SUCKED, so it seems to me that mid-presentation the visitor from the future would have to take a break, head to the nearest outlet and recharge...right? What outlet? Maybe my perception of when things like electricity were discovered for use is a bit off, but it doesn't seem to work to me. Sorry for spelling mistakes it's 2:40am here...
Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-18-2004 5:23 AM Brad has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 90 (124947)
07-16-2004 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Eddy Pengelly
07-15-2004 4:46 AM


So travelling in time is not the paradox
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)
I personally do not know why or what the time traveller was thinking
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.
and I do not know how to build a time machine
i know a few people that might. but it's not good for sending anything bigger than an atom.
time travel seems to be the most prominent conclusion from the evidence. I can not think of anything else at the moment that would account for modern history and descriptions of images from particular cd-roms plus a computer system being documented in many, many, many ancient texts from all around the world and at different times.
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.
Asking me 'Why did Moses or John describe a cd-rom in one way and not another' is off topic.
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.
If you want my opinion I will give it, but it will only be as relevant as yours, or anyone else.
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.
If someone says "extract the sequence of images from the world's various creation myths, then view the Ancients cd-rom, and tell me what you see", I would do this to try to prove them wrong (or to find out what the heck they are talking about).
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.
When I first sat in front of the Ancients cd-rom, with Genesis chapter 1 from the OT in my other hand, I was to check off the images from the screen as they appear to the words from the Bible - I was expecting maybe one or two "coincidences".
But just as the Bible (and creation myth generally) describes a particular sequence of images, these images appeared on the computer monitor before my eyes.
what about genesis 2, does that check out too?
Even the perceived chronology that the Gospels are the first witnesses is incorrect.
duh. here's the doozy, the torah wasn't written by moses, either.
It seems that the Roman person called Paul (Saul) {the one who was against the Christians} wrote over half of the NT.
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
Sounds like a Roman religious public relations book to me - to influence the Hebrews and the original Christians away from their basic beliefs.
agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-15-2004 4:46 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-18-2004 5:34 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 60 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 07-18-2004 5:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 90 (125412)
07-18-2004 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brad
07-15-2004 6:38 AM


I used to have a 386 laptop computer, and if I recall correctly the battery life SUCKED, so it seems to me that mid-presentation the visitor from the future would have to take a break, head to the nearest outlet and recharge...right? What outlet?
Hi Brad. A laptop is just one of several options that may have occurred.
A conventional 386 computer sent back, or did the ancient person get brought forward in time and see a modern 386 working ?
Or was a holographic projection of a 386 computer and its images get sent back ?
Ancient descriptions indicate a tower computer with a separate keyboard, monitor, speakers, and mouse attached by cables to sockets at the foundation of the CPU.
The power issue is still relevant, but I consider that if technology has advanced to a stage where time travel is possible, then something as 'simple' as a battery or power supply for a 386 boxed or laptop computer would not be a big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brad, posted 07-15-2004 6:38 AM Brad has not replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 90 (125413)
07-18-2004 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
07-16-2004 6:12 AM


And I do not know how to build a time machine.
I know a few people that might, but it's not good for sending anything bigger than an atom.
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.
And yet i have managed to refute every one of those examples in the bible
Only using 'modern' words, and ignoring what was originally written in Strong's Concordance.
most of your examples are circumstantial at best
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.
reading into things that aren't there. often, you have to replace whole words, as if the legends were some kind of code.
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.)
If the time traveller so influenced the writing of the bible, how was he able to give a copy to Moses ?
Have a look at some of these texts too, and lemme know what you think, and which, if any, a time traveller influenced directly.
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.
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)
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2004 6:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2004 7:27 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 90 (125414)
07-18-2004 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
07-16-2004 6:12 AM


Here's the doozy, the Torah wasn't written by Moses.
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.
If someone says "extract the sequence of images from the world's various creation myths, then view the Ancients cd-rom, and tell me what you see", I would do this to try to prove them wrong (or to find out what the heck they are talking about).
request -- make a copy and mail it to me.
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2004 6:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by arachnophilia, posted 07-18-2004 7:49 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024