Windows 3 described in the Bible

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

hey eddy. my question still exists on your site.

quote:

---

Arachno America June 2004

​

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Why was the time traveler stupid?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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

quote:

---

diatheke {dee-ath-ay'-kay}

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

wow, that's a sharp ancients cd!

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

. . . "stars" is a singular word.

---

No it isn't. In your Strong's, the singular of the word is listed, i.e. כוכב (kowkab) - "a star"; however, the grammatical form as used in Gen. 1:16 is הכוכבים (h'kowkab'im) - "the stars".

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

"Birds" is a singular word.

---

Only in the same sense that "deer" is a singular word.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly

​

The "sea creature" (tanniyn) is a singular word.

---

Yes, again, in your strong's the singular form "tanniyn" is listed. But its construction in Gen. 1:21 is "h'tanniyn'im", i.e, plural of "tanniyn".

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

. . . both male and female (ie. mankind) in the image of God.
BUT plural males and one female.

---

And lastly, no. In Gen. 1:26, God said "Let us make אדם, (awdawm) - "mankind", in our image . . ."In Gen. 1:27 God created האדם (h'awdawm), i.e., "the man" in his image.It really is a shame that all of your effort and enthusiasm couldn't somehow be properly directed.Still, namaste'Amlodhi

Hi Amlodhi:The hebrew for 1:26,27 says "dm" and not "ishi", therefore, the text accuratley translated says "Let us make Adam in our image".