A modern object described in ancient texts negates Creation Myth

yes, but we're not using it in hebrew, we're using it in GREEK. the fact that vowels are in it in greek indicates that vowels pre-dated the writing of the manuscript.in the original hebrew, it is is dvd, yes. but the name is referred to as a person. a family, actually. we have a record of teh family existing outside of the bible now too, since a plaque was found dating from around the time mentioning someone as from the family of david. only i think it was in sumerian, and used vowels. but i'm nto sure, i'll check.also, i've never seen any dvd drivers for a 386. tell me if you find some. yeah, only it means "writing" which was usually on a scroll, yes. no, that's an invalid argument. completely. one, i KNOW what roll means. i don't need to look in a dictionary. but you're tracing etymology in the wrong way entirely. you can't go from greek back to hebrew, forward to english, and then back to latin. it just doesn't work.the english word "roll" comes from latin "rota" sure. they're both things that ROLL. a roll ROTAtes. the greek word "biblion" however DOESNOT come from rota. it pre-dates rota. in and of itself, it means "writing" and it's where we get "book" today -- not "roll" check strong's. esothen, "within" means "from the soul."ophisten, "on the backside" seems to indicate that it was written after it was sealed. check strongs. well, two problems. ezekiel's book is one of lamentations. john's book is one that CAUSES lamentations because it invokes the wrath of god. also, i have a ton of records. i collect them. i have exactly two that are only written on one side, the uk first edition of nin's "broken" and the second disc of the smashing pumpkin's "adore."is it possible they're speaking of these two? i mean, they aren't written on the inside... no. it is a compact disc, read only memory storage device. dvd is originally digital VIDEO disc, for movies, and is a completely different writing format. there are no 386 dvd drivers. the hebrews like to make up stuff. we have more evidence of david than moses, for instance. namely, one piece of rock with his name on it, mentioning someone as belonging to his family. no, it cannot! even video-cd's aren't dvd's! dvd is a specific compression, mpeg-2, put on a disc using a copyrighted format called css. cd-rom is joliet (etc) on an iso9660 disc. completely different things. if you don't believe me, try reading your dvd in a cd drive, and vice-versa. if it's anything like this, it's full of logical fallacies (i've never heard a pre-hoc propter-hoc before!) bad assumption,s reading things out of context, and poor understanding of language. i check meanings myself all the time. my christian friends hate me for this, because i often ruin their "but the bible says" type arguments. i even translated one of the verses myself, above. go look. i did that myself. me. i took the original greek, looked up the meanings and tenses, and came to a transliteration. it's almost word-for-word what the bible actually says, and i say that with confidence.the problem comes in that in order to get your meanings, you have to "decode" the text. this really means that, and that really means this. it says "writings" probably on a scroll. not "wheel" pardes is a hierarchy of thought for analyzing deeper meanings of texts. pshat - what does it say? your ideas fall short here. remez - what is to be learned (morality)? drash - what is the symbolic meaning, the great message? (how god relates to man, not looking for time travel). sod - secret. what does it say about god, and how he operates?you are not applying this system at all. otherwise the symbolic meanings of revelation would jump out, almost immediately. drash takes into account context (read, oh, any midrash ever) that the book was written in. this easily leads anyone skilled in biblical studies to apply it to the early christian church in rome, during the time of nero, when it was written.it says nothing about time travellers. just nero. unless nero is really george dubya bush, gone back in time. i can picture him fiddling. tracing etymology goes linearly back in time towards more archaic roots. it is invalid to translate, re-translate, and re-translate again and again until a desired meaning is come across, and then claim it as a fix to translation errors. i find cooler, older meanings all the time. i quite enjoy it. i don't find time travel. great! doesn't look like a cd though. hah. why that cd? why not other that are similar? why a cd and not a laser disc movie? or a dvd? or a record? or, hell, the wheel of fortune complete with pat sajack and vanna white?the hindus think of all of time and existance as a big wheel. do we all live in the ancients cd-rom?

i'll agree with crash above, only with some good proof.having seen the operations myself, i can tell you that they're inconsistent methods, often using words from the actual text (i call that cheating). it also works equally well in other books.i have personally heard dr brendan mckay, professor of computer science at the australian national university, speak on the subject, and his arguments were so thorough and convincing, that they made the subject look like such idiocy the audience actually laughed aloud throughout the lecture.read his page, thoroughly: Torah Codes

well, you'd better talk to the people at Oracle | Cloud Applications and Cloud Platform then! smith and co got harassed alot for their ideas. what's one more to get them in trouble? really?especially since charles babbage was a contemporary of joseph smith's, the time travel could likely have even USED THE WORD "COMPUTER" that confirms it! jesus was a dj! dj jesus, rockin' the temple, oh yeah.the passage in question, from memory, is jesus destorying the table of money-changers, with him yelling about them making the house of his father like a den of theives. context, people, context! he's a crackpot, no matter what his qualifications. you and i may disagree on interpretations of genesis, but i think both of us, and any other sane person, can disagree with mr. pegg's.if only for the reason that we have the text, in hebrew, today, read by people who speak hebrew, and they're sure not saying anything like that at all.

i want to raise another question.a lot of hebrew words in the ot come from other languages. they borrowed alot. for instance, the "reed" in "sea of reeds" (or "the red sea" as very often mistranslated) is from an egyptian word.why are no words from english, if a time traveller showed all of these people things from an english cd-rom? how come there are no hebrew-izations of words like "cd-rom" "computer" "disk" etc? it would stand to reason they'd be at least a little similar to modern versions...does this or anything similar appear anywhere in the bible?

eh, no. i gave him a chance.i'm even willing to believe that it's possible, and may have happened. i'm just scrutinizing the so-called evidence, because none of it makes any sense. i don't mean to make fun. well, ok, except for the dj jesus part. because that was funny. but seriously. the guy is a crackpot. just because someone believes something doesn't make it valid or true. things have to stand up to evidence.

that would be quite an accomplishment, considering that, even if you believe everything in the bible happened, pharoah's army trying to cross the red sea sure didn't.because the good book actually says "yam cuwph" ... "the sea of reeds"

there's a problem with this. there's descriptions of wars all throughout the ot, and the torah. they knew what war was.rivers rarely turn to blood, but i'll grant you this one.however, amphibious vehicles don't look like frogs. ground forces don't look like lice (which aren't usually visible to the human eye, btw)f/a-18's don't look, fly, or manuever like flies. nor do they attack in swarms, but small units.iraqi cars don't look like ox.you can have the boils argument.hail doesn't explode when it hits, just makes nasty dents in things. i doubt they were bombs that brought down entire buildings.locusts swarm in the air, not the ground, although they do land and trample each other. however, ground troops don't fly around much.darkness is yours. it's talking about pharoah's firstborn. if hussein = pharoah, then this part is wrong, because we got his first born in THIS war on iraq. the egypt of biblical times is roughly where it is today. an interesting fact: egypt never occupied babylon, which is where baghdad, in iraq, is today. thought they did at one point occupy canaan (where israel is today).and even assuming they did, no one would call hussien the pharoah of egypt. they'd call him the king of babylon: heylel - "lucifer" in latin. your claim not mine.

you're missing a few. try reading "the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind" by julian jaynes. he asserts that people were just basically hallucinatory back then, and backs it up with both archaeology and psychology. i don't see enough correlation between any of those to correlate them to something else, including a randomly picked cd from the future. in fact, i see very little coincidence in your evidence. i mean, maybe if it depicted exactly what the story said. but it doesn't. you have to twist everything to fit, and i bet you could do it equally as well with ANYTHING else.