Windows 3 described in the Bible

look up dr. brendan mckay of the australian national university. he's a computer scientist, and has THOROUGHLY disporved the supposed "bible code"most results are obtained through manipulation of techniques. (some in english, some in hebrew, some in hebrew without the vowels... make up your mind!). and more consistent resutls can be found in moby dick, which even predicted the death of princess di. you still haven't told me exactly how biblion connotates roundness, removed from english. the question was WHY.in any case, i know of a few people that would gladly donate a more advanced computer to such a venture. hell, i'll even throw in "the ten commandments" on dvd, and "the passion of the christ" as well when it comes out.the question was alsy why the conclusion of a 386? what evidence shows this? what evidence shows that it was that particular cdrom? is it anything in the texts, or just coincidences with the number of messengers in the endtimes and a file size? and we're reading into it that a box described as holding some scrolls and two stones held two stones and some scrolls, instead of a bunch of cdroms?although, i did hear an interesting theory about it being a giant battery. i think this is more plausible. my copy reads:

quote:

---

The tabernacle, his tent, and his covering, his hooks, and his boards, his bars, his pillars, and his bases, The ark, and the staves thereof, [with] the mercy seat, and the vail of the covering, The table, and his staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread,

---

where, pray tell, did the rest come from? moses is listing stuff that the israelites are to MAKE from offerings they were to give, as per the lord's previous instruction. so if it's a computer, they MADE it THEMSELVES. of course, i'll grant you this one: maybe god is a time-traveler.

quote:

---

And he put the staves into the rings on the sides of the altar, to bear it withal; he made the altar hollow with boards. And he made the laver [of] brass, and the foot of it [of] brass, of the lookingglasses of [the women] assembling, which assembled [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

---

it says the people donated stuff. so if it's a computer, the "excavated" bit was literally made of brass people had brought with them, and "monitor" from mirrors the ladies used.this one i don't get:

quote:

---

The height of the one pillar [was] eighteen cubits, and the chapiter upon it [was] brass: and the height of the chapiter three cubits; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work.

---

also, 8 bits is not a transfer rate but a parity. it designats teh amount of information in a byte. 8 bit is enough for ascii text, one null character, and seven binary bits to for an ascii code for a letter.windows 3.1, btw, is 16 bit. not 8. only if solomon lived in a computer. verse 1:

quote:

---

But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.

---

i think the mormon bit is stretching it, but for a second, i'll grant it plausibility. i remember when cd-rom's were new. i was in middle school. they were originally made in plastic square cases even. kinda dorky looking, but it makes more sense than they way they do things now. during that time, the only computer i ever used that had to boot up fro even ONE floppy was an apple 2 gs (goddamned slow, as it was called). it must have been ten years old at the time, and we were running pentium 1's everywhere else. so there's a problem. 386's were long gone by the time cd-rom's came on the scene for popular use. and everything since, well, ever in the pc world has had a hard drive. only apple was stupid enough to no include one inside the case. every 386 i ever used had hard drive in it. the one i owned, a compaq laptop, had a 60 meg hard drive. that's 42 floppies.

quote:

---

And all the oxen for the sacrifice of the peace offerings [were] twenty and four bullocks, the rams sixty, the he goats sixty, the lambs of the first year sixty. This [was] the dedication of the altar, after that it was anointed.

---

note: that's sixty. i checked. they're talking about a big sacrifice. what do you think they're saying? and, uhh, i checked the etymology. i don't know hebrew or greek, but i know people who do. and of course, i can use a concordance. i even offered my own translation of one of the verse you used in the other thread, making sure to adhere to word order, root meaning and etymology, and tense. and it still says nothing like that. this is the only example i have ever seen of "pre-hoc propter-hoc." lol. it's more plausible to asume the blatant logical fallacy of "POST-hoc propter-hoc" rather than assume that because something now bears similarity to something a long time ago, that new thing must have caused the older thing, and draw the conclusion of time travel from that. if anything, the first one caused the second! although, at best, it's really a circumstantial reading of the text, ignoring real meaning and context, and reading way too far into something in the wrong direction. it's reasonably well known that john in revelation was talking about nero csar, and the burning of rome. if you want some proof, take nero's name in hebrew: nrwn qsr. since hebrew letters work like roman numerals and have significance, and n=50, r=200, w=6, q=100, and s=60, nero = 666. apparently, it also works in aramaic. doesn't fit the context of the story at all. for one, jesus is claimed as a descendant of moses... and they literally say "egypt" "pharoah" etc, and even name places and people at some points.

.txt files, my friend. or better yet, jpeg's.

so they can build a quantum computer, but not a pentium 2?

i can vouch for this. i've set up windows 3.1 a number of times. actually, most of the stuff on it is print and soundcard drivers. go figure.

yes, well, then he could have used that word, couldn't he? i gave a translation earlier for spinning disc in greek, also. and that's not what he used. he used "biblion" which means "writings" not wheel. no, i understand it. i understand better than you do, apparently, because every single person i've mentioned it to has literally busted out laughing at how bad a translation that method that is.you CANNOT go through multiple languages, especially when one of those languages (modern english) post-dates all the others. the modern language has to be the END result, straight from the source, and you stop there. no, he's wrong. it's an invalid method, and you fail to see it just how stupid a mistake that is. you mean "made of brass"check my indepth refutations of each of those points. you know, translating the original text myself. i checked strong's for every word of that verse. did you?but i'll do it again if it'll make you happy. mishkan. dwelling place (of the lord). tabernacle. 'ohel. tent, specifically of the tabernacle. from 'ahal, meanikng "to shine"mikceh. covering, modifies 'ohel. meaning that the tent hides the light of the lord. from kacah, meaning to hide. qerec. hook. from qarac, meaning to bend down. (not protrude. right number though!) invalid logic with the language again. you can't do that. you're taking the etymology of an older translation. besides, mine says "hook" qeresh. board, plank, or bench. do you sit on your keyboard? looks like it. yes, it is from an unused root meaning to split off. ...like, from a tree. b@riyach. bar. of wood, a city gate, or a prison, figuratively. from barach meaning to chase, drive away. as in shaking a stick at something. `ammuwd. pillar, column. (sometimes of smoke) from `amad meaning to stand firm. that's 'eden, and means base, or foundation. (as in the garden of eden. similar idea.)it doesn't matter what else comes from it. lots of words come from lots of words. automobile comes from auto, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing as me. (auto = self). you have to look at just the individual words, it's root, context, and how it's being modified. no, it doesn't. at all. the actual text is a grocery list. it's a list, not a description. you're changing the fundamental purpose of the verse, a big no-no. it gives:"the tabernaacle, a tent that hides the glory of god, with hooks and planks of wood, bars, and strongly based columns"and that's using the connotations of the words too. the original translation i gave above (my own, from checking the concordance as well) is more literally correct to what the verse says. that's nice and all. but IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. there's nothing about putting anything into anything else all, for instance. there's not bit about hollows, and the protruding part means BENT. it's a very, very incorrect translation. 'arown. like... a coffin. comes from 'arah, meaning to gather. bad. alone. or part. from badad, meaning to isolate. kapporeth. from kaphar meaning to cover and atone. or purify. for a more specifice meaning, here's a description.

quote:

---

Exd 25:17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat [of] pure gold: two cubits and a half [shall be] the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
Exd 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
Exd 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
Exd 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
Exd 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
Exd 25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

---

a cubit is the distance from your elbow to the end of your middle finger. this thing was 2.5 x 1.5 cubits. thats about 4ft by just under 3 ft. (estimation here) and FLAT. find me anything used in computer ever that's that size, made of pure gold, and has two angels on either side. poreketh. vail. from perek which means CRUELTY. that's from an unused root meaning to break apart. in other words, the vail separates stuff. macak. covering. from cakak, meaning to shut in. it's also a euphamism for pooping, but i doubt that has much to do with it. mostly, it connotates secrecy. in other words, more seperation, not entwining. check it yourself. shulchan. table, specifically for sacred or royal use. from shalach, meaning stretched out. i'll give you this one. this one was closer:

quote:

---

905 "staves" means 'a separation'.

---

bad. alone. or part. from badad, meaning to isolate. still more secrecy. k@liy. article, vessel, implement, utensil. etc. basically means "things that hold" from kalah meaning to consumeyou forgot paniym and lechem.lechem means bread from lacham meaning to eat. (or to make war... interesting. but the meaning here is to eat) paniym means face from panah meaning to turn. the idea is that it's bread for show or ceremony, not to be eaten.do you have ceremonial bread on your computer? try "the ark of the covenant and its parts, the mercy seat, and the vail that seperates it from the table and its parts, cups and ceremonial bread" again, nice, but that's not what it says. unless a mouse holds something, which it does not, and the keyboard is used for holding food, which it is not, and the monitor is used to seperate the user of the keyboard and mouse from the cpu, which it is not. me too, but his translations are EVEN WORSE.i can't really go on with this for too much longer, because i'm on vacation and not on my own computer. i'll come back and do the rest later, because this takes time, as i am actually looking up the meanings myself.

i posted the description from an earlier chapter, yes. my computer still doesn't come with cherubim... however, the verse in question is describing the ALTAR. here's the bit you missed:

quote:

---

Exd 38:1 And he made the altar of burnt offering [of] shittim wood: five cubits [was] the length thereof, and five cubits the breadth thereof; [it was] foursquare; and three cubits the height thereof.
Exd 38:2 And he made the horns thereof on the four corners of it; the horns thereof were of the same: and he overlaid it with brass.
Exd 38:3 And he made all the vessels of the altar, the pots, and the shovels, and the basons, [and] the fleshhooks, and the firepans: all the vessels thereof made he [of] brass.
Exd 38:4 And he made for the altar a brasen grate of network under the compass thereof beneath unto the midst of it.
Exd 38:5 And he cast four rings for the four ends of the grate of brass, [to be] places for the staves.
Exd 38:6 And he made the staves [of] shittim wood, and overlaid them with brass.
Exd 38:7 And he put the staves into the rings on the sides of the altar, to bear it withal; he made the altar hollow with boards.
Exd 38:8 And he made the laver [of] brass, and the foot of it [of] brass, of the lookingglasses of [the women] assembling, which assembled [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

---

boards is luwach. it's most common translation is "board" or "plank" but it also means tablet. as in the tablets that moses carries down from the mount of sinai, that god wrote upon with his own hands. is god merely a time traveler with a cd-rw drive? and it's tricky to break cd's by throwing them as exoduse 32:19 says. i'll give you the written on both sides argument, because i can see you saying one side english one side binary. that's fine... but the rest doesn't fit...also, there's no connotation of glistening anywhere. close, kiyowr means pot or basin. it comes from something meaning to dig out. however, this is an altar of sacrifice. and cd-trays are no good at holding water (i challenge you to try):

quote:

---

Exd 30:18 Thou shalt also make a laver [of] brass, and his foot [also of] brass, to wash [withal]: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.

---

n@chosheth. brass or copper. it's talking about a metal, not a color. and ever if it was, i've never seen a yellow 386, just off-white, grey, and black. it's talking about the ALTAR. it means the alter was hollow, made with wooden planks or slabs of stone, with a bowl on top for washing, like the earlier verse says. no, it means the women had mirrors made with rims/backs/handles made of brass or copper, and they melted those down to make the stand. that is what the verse says, and what the earlier verse give instruction to do. all 386s, 486s, and pentium 1s were 32 bit capable. the pentium pro was designed to run only 32 bit. dos was an 8 bit os, and windows 3.1, 3.11 and windows for workgroups were all 16 bit os "add-ons" to the 8bit dos archeticture which was deisnged for earlier systems. windows 95 was 32 bit, designed to take advantage of the pentium pro and later chips, but still ran off dos (which i think by that time was 16 bit). 98 = 95 with tweaks, and ME was the first to lose dos as the actual os. (fully 32 bit). not sure if xp is 32 or 64.windows 3.1 however is a 16 bit application, run on 16 bit computers which could also do 32 bit.now you know. as the son of a world-famous mathematician, this offends me.however, aside from that, the fact is that it does indeed say 18 (sh@moneh-`asar, or eight-ten, meaning in 18). it's also talking about the top portion, the gilded brass leafing, 3 cubits at the top. (included in the 18 cubit height, btw) [qs]You will find Mr Pegg's full translation of Numbers 7:88 on page 944 of his research Booklet #7, The Matter as Spoken".
He ends by saying, quote- "While not grammatically fluent the "feel" from the etymology has just described 16 thin floppy discs (unrecognizable thing) with a metal locking protector (sliding metal protector) as a specific 'force' from a larger group of 24 that are inserted (offered up)."-end quote[qs]

quote:

---

And all the oxen for the sacrifice of the peace offerings [were] twenty and four bullocks, the rams sixty, the he goats sixty, the lambs of the first year sixty. This [was] the dedication of the altar, after that it was anointed.

---

it's couting ox. ox! it's counting ox, rams, goats, lambs... really. i checked. shishshiym. sixty. yes, it's a multipl of six.sixteen, however, is shesh-'asar, not shishshiym. but there's a difference that you seemed to have missed. although written in greek by john, and aimed at rome, it was written for an audience that would also have still been very hebrew. and i'm not jumping around any. i'm not going greek to english to old english to latin to modern english again. i'm taking a name from latin, as spoken by people who spoke hebrew or aramaic (which were both spoken at the time, and by the people the text was written to as well as the author) and analyzing the numerical significance, because things often have numerical meanings in hebrew.get the difference? john spoke hebrew. the people he was writing to probably did too. they were required to encode messages (like the jesus fish) so they wouldn't die. speaking against the emporer is treason and they'd get thrown to the lions for it.however, john did not speak old english or modern english, and would have had no idea about other connotations of translations of his work. i'm unsure if he spoke latin, but he might have. i would have done it with roman numerals, but you can't spell "nero" that way. or much else, for that matter. except that view fits history very well. and they were required to encode such messages. revelation is likely all one big encoded message to the church of rome from john. and it is not the same method, as i described above. it's an actual directed numeric code, not fun with translations of words.if you wanna do the same thing, look for numbers in the bible and tell me what they mean. here's a start 18 = life. do show me. i've seen nothing other than crackpot theories worthy of "chariots of the gods" and the like.also, it went latin, to hebrew, to a number actually appearing within the text. however, lots of other names work in other languages. i think someone showed me one time that "bill gates" works in ascii, which i thought was funny.of course, that would mean your 386 with windows 3.1 is the anti-christ.

yes, it takes some effort. but i've been doing this for a while. good translations often win me religious debates. however, you have not offered a single good translation. you're deriving incorrect meanings in everyway possible, bad and multiple language translation, and reading it to mean only what you want it to say, far, far out of context. save yourself some trouble: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bibleand of course it disagrees with mr pegg's conclusions. check it yourself. this site has probably the most up-to-date and accurate concordance, and it sure beats flipping through a published strongs.many times it does have the word you're using, you're just using it very, very incorrectly. but your concordance seems to give funny lengthy descriptions in vocabulary uncommon today, and then you derive false meanings from mistranslating those words. this one's in modern english. simple test: the more words it says, the less accurate the information. this site for instance spends a paragraph each for behemoth and leviathan explaining how they were dinosaurs. (they weren't). generally, it's pretty easy to tell when they're winging it. when they're not, it's this word, means that word.and remember, hebrew and greek are still spoken today. i did this all before. i don't know how you're debating it. i posted each word, and it's meaning in modern english according to an updated strong's. i often posted their roots, too, and explained how the words were derived from the roots.want me to get my hebrew neighbors to tell me what it actually says? would that settle it for you? sure beat using strong's, you know, actually having someone who can read hebrew, and has the torah handy.i'll skip a bit, because i don't have the patience for this, really. anyone interested is welcome to check strong's themselves. the word comes from the hebrew word for bent. it means hook. i'm serious. check it. "belaying pin," btw, is even used in modern english, in boating. it's used for securing ropes on a boat. as such: Wooden Boat Fittings - Belaying Pinsnotice something? they're not bent. that entry in strongs was wrong, and came about because the use described in the text (securing the ropes of the tabernacle) matched the boating technology. the entry has since been corrected. i'm taking words from hebrew, and bringing them into modern english. this is the only acceptable way to translate something. even though a valid translation itself, translating the septuigint (greek old test.) into modern english will yield errors. it's like making a copy of a copy. what you're doing is translating from hebrew, tracing etymology (badly) backwards, taking that word and translating it into old english, then latin, then modern english.ever played the game "telephone?" no, because you're taking the root, and then the word it came from, which if often a different part of speech. you're ignoring ALL of the grammer, by using strong's like that. i can use it to make pretty successful translations from greek, paying attention to tenses. one is `Eden (the garden) which loosely means paradise, or pleasure, wealth, luxury, etc. the other is 'eden, meaning a strong foundation.see the difference? it's a pun, sort of. it spends a chapter talking about the construction of the tabernacle and describing it in detail, and how it's gonna be done. then it spends a chapter describing the actual construction. i'm not using "given religious meanings" i'm using "context."you're looking to read something into verses that you pick and choose... that just isn't there. you took a verse from a chapter describing big sacrifice and told me the number of animals (the WRONG number of animals) was talking about bits and bytes. what about the 20 or so verse before it talking about sacrifice and celebration? i used the etymology above. correctly. and it makes mr pegg look like an idiot. it in no way confirms his claims.if anything, i can provide better evidence for the claims of raelians, what with god being a space alien and all.

why would you use anything else? we're trying to ascertain the meanings of words. putting them in terms of of older words and then into newer words for that doesn't make sense. you get translation errors that way. then wouldn't it make sense that we'd see MORE evidence for computers in the bible? if there was a hebrew words that meant "keyboard" strong certainly wouldn't have understood it when he first published his concordance in 1890. LATE 1800's.my concordance is more up to date. but what you are doing is not seeking the original meaning of the word in hebrew, you're seeking alternate meanings of translations of the root word. lots of times a word comes from another word that means something entirely different, because word meanings can change as a language develops.but curiously enough, it does look as though you may have found a translation error. luwach (h3871) usually seems to refer to stone tablets, except in two instances where the word is followed by description ("of cedar" and "of fir trees"). usually, it's refering to the two tablets of the law of moses.yes, its root probably means "shiny" but polished stone is quite shiny. it's also applied to metal plates for this reason.it's likely the altar was made of metal, since it had to be suspended, by rings, on sticks. does your copmuter have rings that hold it up on sticks? no, that's the word it's from. you can't translate that way. [/qs]And if you say these 'boards' refer to the tables that Moses was given, then you are getting closer to what the original meanings of the words are really trying to tell us. The tables that he held were glistening polished plates - attributes of a compact disk.[/qs]except it's not being used to describe round objects. it's being used to describe flat rectangular objects, like the boards of a ship.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. but it's not written that way. it's written like you would write a plate of metal, a slab of stone, or a plank of wood.maybe the ten commandments were on 3 1/4 disks? try again, even if they're cd's, which they're not, they contain the mosaic laws, written by god.

quote:

---

to break, break in pieces
a) (Qal)
1) break, break in or down, rend violently, wreck, crush, quench
2) to break, rupture (fig)
b) (Niphal)
1) to be broken, be maimed, be crippled, be wrecked
2) to be broken, be crushed (fig)
c) (Piel) to shatter, break
d) (Hiphil) to cause to break out, bring to the birth
e) (Hophal) to be broken, be shattered
  —7665

---

in exodus 32:19, where moses breaks the tablets, it's:

quote:

---

8762 Stem - Piel See 08840
Mood - Imperfect See 08811
Count - 2447

---

c) (Piel) to shatter, break.it's talking about shattering a complete complete object. not giving birth. then why did he have to go back up the mountain so god could make him two new tablets? remember, this is refering to breaking the tablets themselves, not their storage device. except that everywhere it's being used, it means pot or basin, something that holds something in a cavity, not something with a hole. this one in particular describes it being used for ritual washing befor entering teh temple -- where the computer with the cdrom would be, right?"hole" would be peh, which means "mouth" or "opening" or maybe chowr or chuwr. that actually made me laugh outloud.although i am unable to find a picture of the cd-rom in question, i did find another curious problem. the cd doesn't cover israel. at all. it cover egypt, greece, rome, etc. but not israel. the title for gods, eloyhim, comes from the wind god of an older civilization. not the sun god.wow, you even do it in english. homonyms here. roll - as in a bread roll -- comes from the action "to roll." it describes the process used to make it, not it's function.a bread roll will not roll, and a cd-rom cannot be eaten.also, rolls are leavened bread, without, the bread is flat, like pita bread. this would go along perfectly with your point, hell, pita even LOOKS kind of a like a cd, flat and round.but to confound your point even more, the hebrews ate matzoh, which is rectangular. cd's are no good for drinking out of. they are however good for coasters. maybe they set their cups on cd's? for 5153:

quote:

---

apparently pass participle of 05172 (perhaps in the sense of ringing, i.e. bell-metal

---

5172 is:

quote:

---

1) to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
a) (Piel)
1) to practice divination
2) to observe the signs or omens

---

i don't know where you're getting anything else. ok, actually i do.the verb for practicing divination is nachash. the noun for serpent is nachash. they're homonyms. serpent is actually derived, in hebrew, from practicing divination. they're actually pronounced a little differently, and used as different parts of speech. copper and serpent come from the same word, but copper does not derive its meaning from serpent at all. but the word for bronze or copper is describing a metal to be used in ceremonial ways, not the color. even if the word had been derived from the color, the word still means the metal. it's talking about a reddish metal, not yellowed (with age) plastic. mirrors reflect, they don't give visions.you're right, "women" was added. however, it's still describing moses making something out of something else, that belonged to the people. perhaps the computer screen was built by moses? agreed. a lot of gender stereotypes like this were added. however, the mirrors still came from the people who followed moses. that's like taking lincoln's famous speech, "four-score and seven years ago..." to mean it happened three times, four, twenty, and seven years ago.8 and 10 is still 18. that's just how numbers are made in hebrew.presuming these show: from: My Hebrew Dictionary: Numbers(read right to left)and 8 followed by a 10 is 18 even in modern hebrew. no, that's numerology bs, and inconsistent.they used the word for 60, not 16. they had words for both, i'm sure they understood the concepts. the word itself isn't even six tens, or ten sixes, it repeats the value of six twice. nothing close to ten comes anywhere into play at all in the hebrew. lmao.i hope you don't take that seriously though.

[qs]In his Nostradamus investigations, Mr Pegg says that the first two lines of this quatrain refers to the nine Arab League nations that did not vote to go to war with Iraq.[/q]si'm not gonna even bother with nostradamus. i've seen everything and anything read into his writing, but in truth, he's about as accurate as my horoscope and for the same reasons. nice, except for the bad math. maybe he was subracting from 2001, the first year of the new millenium? but subtraction when the rest is a date? and why 2001? or for that matter 2000? none of that follows, fits the text, or makes any sense at all. nor is it research.

yeah, ancient meanings like "hook" wow. we obviously have no way of describing a hook today, since we've lost so many phrases like "belaying pin" even though we still use it today in boating.come on.wanna go older english? the old english word for "hook" is "angel" pronounced like "angle" how about if we translate qerec as "angel" instead of "tache" or "belaying pin"? does that make more sense to you? you know what an angel is, right? no, i'm using the most recent understanding of the word. using an older, and often incorrect version, in language that no one today understands is bad. so are you. can you read hebrew? we have to put it in modern english somehow, right? my point is that it's better to do it with the most recent and direct translation, NOT jumping around inconsistently through other languages.qerec, or hook, in french is "crochet"were they made of yarn? if anyone else is reading -- what do you think?dr strong used language customary to his time. i'm using language customary to my time. it's invalid to use language from another time, and then re-translate it to modern languag, if you already have a modern translation. specifically when you do it as badly as you have done.qerec still comes from "to bend" not "darting out quickly" i've held this discussion before, it can be shown just from the text that behemoth and leviathan are not dinosaurs. leviathan in particular is a seven-headed sea-dragon borrowed from ugaritic mythologies, and embodies chaos and deception. in the case of job 41+42, behemoth (a gentle giant) and leviathan (a violent fire-breather) are being used symbolically to describe satan.not dinosaurs. actually, the version strong used, the king james bible, was deeply, deeply flawed. everyone except for a few crazy fundis knows this. no, you're doing something else. because i translate that way almost everytime i use a bible verse, and come to conclusions very similar to the actual translation. you're using incorrect meanings, deriving them from roots (which are often wrong) and improper translations. which is more likely:
1. that dr strong was a genius, inspired by god, and completely infallible, as was every other man who worked on the translation his work was derived from, and people nowadays are changing the meaning of words like "board" to hide the true meaning that really means "cd" even when talking about ship parts
or.
2. that dr strong was human being capable of error, as were the people who worked on the kjv bible, and he used older language which may be confusing to people nowadays, who have been continually re-translating the work from the original hebrew, and correcting little bits here and there.think about it.and besides, even if you like "belaying pin" over "hook," a belaying pin still looks nothing like a cd drive.

i want one for my computer.

yeah, but those snap off more easily.

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

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

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