Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 3:18 PM
173 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,585 Year: 2,622/19,786 Month: 704/1,918 Week: 292/266 Day: 29/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   A modern object described in ancient texts negates Creation Myth
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 117 (114757)
06-13-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object
06-12-2004 9:45 PM


Space aliens/time travel yet a physical structure on the face of the Earth that could not be built today

Says you; yet, there it is, with absolutely no sign of divine intervention - in fact, no sign of anything except a lot of elbow grease.

The Egyptians weren't idiots, WT. We know that they built the Pyramids, and as far as I know, we know more or less how they did it. You couldn't address a single criticism of your theory in the thread you opened for that purpose, so I'm not going to sit here and discuss it with you OT.

Don't confuse an open mind for a mind so open the brain has fallen out - which is exactly what would have to happen to me to believe your Pyramid garbage. I gave your Pyramid bullshit all the consideration it deserved, which was not much. The simplest, most accurate explanation is that the Egyptians built the Pyramids.

Similarly here, the most accurate, most likely explanation is that Eddy is full of shit. There's people more qualified to attack the time travel premise; I've chosen to restrict my argument to the inconsistencies with the purported hardware. I'm as open to time travel as I am to your Pyramid horseshit, which is to say, not very.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-12-2004 9:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 117 (114821)
06-13-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object
06-12-2004 10:11 PM


Re: Technology outline for WT
willowtree writes:

I posted the Pyramid topic in full knowledge that it would be instantly dismissed by persons who never studied the evidence for 10 hours of their life

Between In Search Of, Histories Mysteries, and The Discovery Channel, I have spent at LEAST thirty hours of my life studying the pyramids. Heck, throw in those two hours I spent at the Met, and a Tutenkhamen exhibit in Seattle and I have closer to thirty-five!

So I hope you will give my learned opinion the respect it deserves when I say I must unequivocally agree with Crashfrog on this one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-12-2004 10:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-14-2004 3:06 PM custard has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1090 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 63 of 117 (115103)
06-14-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by custard
06-13-2004 10:25 AM


Re: Technology outline for WT
Hi Custard !

My point was for all intents and purposes nobody (my opponents) has spent 10 hours of their life reviewing the evidence and sources pertaining to the claims that God built the Pyramid.

Watching 35 hours of commercial television, a source that will not even remotely touch the scientific evidence much less the Divine evidence, obviously does not count. Commercial television will only parrot the drivel of egyptologists and their nonsense that humans beings thousands of years ago built this genius structure with incline planes, levers, pulleys, and slave labor. Any objective person who LOOKS at the scientific evidence alone will quickly abandon the aforementioned rubbish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by custard, posted 06-13-2004 10:25 AM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 3:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 117 (115276)
06-15-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object
06-14-2004 3:06 PM


I once saw a man on a rocky beach in San Diego stacking stones. He'd take jagged rocks, each generally sort of tear-drop shaped and about the size of a laptop computer, and stack them the long way, into piles almost 8 feet tall.

Here, something like this:

http://www.rockstacker.com/wclif/index.html

only taller, with rocks that were more jagged, and he was balancing them sharp end to sharp end.

Everyone was certain that he was cheating, somehow - using glue or magnets or fake rocks or something. But I watched him build an entire pile right before my eyes, and all he was doing was balancing them very, very carefully. He had done an entire beachful - something like 20-30 stacks - in just a few hours, which I knew because he had done them in a place where the tide was going to come in and wreck 'em.

The point of this story is that the difference between reasonable people and Willowtree is that reasonable people can tell the difference between stuff that's physically impossible and stuff that's just so hard to do it's hard to imagine someone doing it. But because WT can't imagine those dumb ol' Egyptians actually building the Pyramids, it must be the result of actions by a god nobody's ever seen or heard from since.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-14-2004 3:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2004 7:22 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

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


Message 65 of 117 (115299)
06-15-2004 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
06-15-2004 3:42 AM


i saw a bunch of scientists raise an 11 ton egyptian style obelisk on the history channel today.

using a kite.

it's an interesting conjecture, and apparently totally plausible. who knows if that's how they did it. but my point is... it's probably just that we're not smart enough to figure out how they did it, not that it was impossible. sometimes, it just requires a little creativity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2004 3:42 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-15-2004 3:33 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1090 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 66 of 117 (115425)
06-15-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by arachnophilia
06-15-2004 7:22 AM


Arach:

About what year did mankind forsake the belief that the Earth was flat ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2004 7:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 06-15-2004 3:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2004 2:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 117 (115432)
06-15-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object
06-15-2004 3:33 PM


WILLOWTREE writes:

About what year did mankind forsake the belief that the Earth was flat ?

Most of mankind gave up the idea that the earth was flat a good while ago. It certainly was 2-3000 years ago at a minimum. The circumference was accurately measured before 200BC at the very latest. It is likely that the circumference had been calculated many times before that.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-15-2004 3:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

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


Message 68 of 117 (115594)
06-16-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object
06-15-2004 3:33 PM


define mankind. becuase different people thought different things.

for instance, the ancient greeks and egpytians knew not only that earth was a sphere some 2000 years ago, they knew its circumference. western europe didn't come to this realization until about 500 years ago (and even then, it took magellan going all the way around to prove it).

then again, there's the flat-earth society, that still thinks the earth is flat, and all the people who've been in orbit are just lying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-15-2004 3:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 117 (115624)
06-16-2004 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Eddy Pengelly
06-12-2004 11:51 PM


Re: Outstanding replies
DAVID: When the Hebrew letters DVD were later related to other people as sounds and then much later translated into Greek, then Latin, then Old English, the vowel sounds of "a" and "i" were added.
query -- However, the Greek WAS written with vowels, and revelation was originally written in Greek. The word being translated as the name David in revelation is DABID dabid with a b, not a v.

Yes, but, the use and context of the word David ('dabid' in Greek) directly refers to the Hebrew word #1732 David ('dvd' in Hebrew) in the biblical context. Although it is written and pronounced differently in the Greek language over a thousand years later, the David of the New Testament directly refers to the David of the Old Testament.
Thus it is not the Greek use of the word David that we are investigating, but the original Hebrew David*.

In the same way, the "book" with seven seals of the New Testament (Revelations 5:1-5) refers to the "book" that was sealed in the Old Testament (Isaiah 29:11; Daniel 12:4) and also seen by Ezekiel 2:9 "a roll of a book".

The New Testament gives the hint to look at the Hebrew meanings and context of the words (twice: "in the Hebrew tongue"; Revelations 9:11 and 16:16). So looking at a characteristic of this 'sealed book' we find that the Hebrew description by Ezekiel himself is that of it being a "roll".

So not only does the meaning in Strong's Concordance for Greek word "biblion' states 'roll', but an original Hebrew characteristic of it is a 'roll'. (H-word 4039 "roll".) For me to find out what 'roll' means, I refer to an English dictionary: "Roll" comes from the Latin 'rota' which meant "wheel". So what we now know as a roll was known as a wheel in Roman times.

What was the etymology of the word "book" associated with this roll as described by Ezekiel ?
H-word "book" 5612 comes from H-word 5608 which means 'to score with a mark as a record'.

What were the other characteristics of this book as cited in Revelations 5:1 ?
"..a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals".

So we have the same book being described by two biblical writers, one Hebrew, one Greek, as: A roll that is written within and on the backside and sealed with seven seals; being a book scored with marks as a record.

The 1995 Ancients cd-rom by general definition is a digital versatile disk. It is round like a wheel. The disk has its information written within plastic layers, and is read from the back (as it rotates). The information is scored on to the plastic with marks and records the digital data.
This particular cd-rom as identified by Mr Pegg, has seven headings (icon/seals) that provide information - just as the biblical descriptions recount !

David in Hebrew is d-v-d. Perhaps you believe the ancient king himself* was really, say, a collection of davey and goliath on dvd?

In the Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger, Coogan, Oxford University Press, 1993), it is noted that David is "one of the best-known biblical characters" but is "a curiously elusive figure. The Bible tells of his carving out an empire unmatched in ancient Israel's history. Elsewhere, however, in historical records from near that period (tenth century BCE), he is not so much as mentioned".

*So as far as historical evidence shows, this 'David' character did not exist.
Then comes Mr Pegg's work that looks at the original word meanings. The evidence presented for his claims (in his works) show that descriptions from a particular cd-rom are noted in ancient texts.
In the general context of DVD meaning a digital versatile disk, a cd-rom that also contains video sequences can be called a dvd.

So, more or less - Yes - the many stories of the Bible (and from other ancient texts) including the David character are in fact describing characteristics and images from a modern cd-rom (dvd) - and when you really get into his work (which is available from the PPHC Study Group's web site), he presents further evidence that indicates the described given 'biblical history' refers to actual modern events, and not the ancient biblical history of which we have been led to believe (that is strangely not documented in any other sources of those times to support the Bible's claims).

If we are to apply pardes to Christian texts, as I think we should, let's focus on Remez and Drush at least. What you're attempting to do is squeeze something into a very literal, p'shat, reading of the text, and reassign words different meanings.

One example of finding the 'hidden' meanings in ancient texts has been presented to you on this forum. Please do not solely judge Mr Pegg's work on my personal attempt.
You say that I (by utilizing Mr Pegg's methods) am trying to assign different meanings to the Bible's words.
Mr Pegg points out that when many of the words in the Old English KJV Bible have their meanings and/or etymology checked to Strong's Concorndance, they do NOT use the given and known meaning, but one that is totally different yet appears to fit into the context of the rest of the given verse- and that when all the words are checked, they too have often been amended to fit in.

What Mr Pegg is doing in many cases is replacing the religious "given" meaning with the original stated Hebrew root meanings or the known use of the word during those ancient times - as he considers that just using the Old English religious scribe's best guessed words of about 2,840 years later does not represent the original message of the people who had encounters with the reported "messenger of god".

When I have checked some of what he says, most of it appears to be as he says.
But I agree with several people that there is a level at which you stop looking for other meanings. To this end, I will be carefully re-examining all of Mr Pegg's translations and seeing if they all are in fact 'correct' in citing the original Hebrew meanings and etymology.
This is one of the reasons I have set up the virtual PPHC Study Group and made Ronald Pegg's work available on the net.
My opinion that most of his work appears correct does not make it right - and other people's initial opinions that "it can't be true" doesn't make it wrong.

I have found that if a biblical prophet is describing a book that is written within and read from the back side, and has seven seals, there is no symbolism being used, but he is faithfully describing an object that is like a book, but written within and read from the back, and has seven seals that you need to pass before you access the information.
To date, religious opinion has provided no answers to this type of inquiry.
Mr Pegg on the other hand, although initially his claims are totally unexpected, has provided much evidence that shows what he declares is mostly correct - and the specific Ancients cd-rom DOES match these descriptions.

While Strong's Concordance is popular without a doubt - it is a source for beginners. No serious scholar/theologian would rely on Strong's as their primary source for Biblical word meanings.

Since the Bible's words were first written down, many different people from different countries with different agendas have "translated" and "interpreted" the Bible.
I do not have much confidence in the accuracy of a 'modern' Bible concordance that has been written by a particular group for their distinctive Bible that has been specifically produced for their version of religion.
By using that type of concordance, you will only find what the writers have decided the translations and interpretations mean - and not necessarily the original intent. This is also true for the KJV Bible in relation to some of the surface text 'dictionary meanings' as found in Strong's Concordance. It has already been pointed out that various 'religious' meanings given in the concordance do not use the root or known meanings. This in itself is reason enough for continued investigation.

The stories of the Bible, ie. the plain text translation of the Bible, is at a religious level - being what the priests wanted to say in order for their religion to keep control of the people. Mr Pegg cites the additions to 1John 5:7-8 in Jerome's Latin Bible, the 'Vulgate' as evidence for this claim.

Mr Pegg is utilizing the known decoding techniques of the Hebrews (PaRDeS) and Greeks (Green Language) to find the original meanings that have been covered over due to 'religious translations'. This includes using the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin original meanings of our 'modern' words (as outlined in a separate post) and tracing their etymology, as those meanings are closer to what was originally intended than what our words of 2,000 years later convey.
When the original meanings and contexts are revealed from the words of the KJV Bible using Strong's Concordance, a whole new set of unexpected descriptions are produced - the primeval messages.

Modern scholars and theologians are only finding the religious meanings of ancient words that have been placed as the given text, because they are using concordances written by similarly minded religious people. (It is like asking a group of politicians to hold a review into their own monetary matters to see if they should get a pay rise.)

Consider that what Mr Pegg is doing is not a 'language translation' as such, but a decoding of a code that was placed in the Bible by people from the future. (Unlike Dr Rip's E.L.S. 'letter code', this code is at the 'word' level.)
The key to that code is the etymology contained in Strong's Concordance.

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".

A 'flat disk that spins' has been documented in many ancient cultures.
The Sumerian earth goddess, Inanna, acquired the Tablet of Destiny. Ashur, an associated chief deity had as his emblem a winged disk.
In Egypt at Elephantine, the creator god Khnum utilized a potters wheel. This type of potter's wheel is also mentioned in Jeremiah 18:3 (where H-word 70 "wheels" is 'oben' in Hebrew; and according to Mr Pegg's research relates to the 'Ben-Ben' stone of Egypt).
Ganesha was the Indian Hindu god of wisdom, and was also known as Chakra-Raja (Lord of the Wheel). He held the Chakra (wheel), and his mount was a mouse. Vishnu also held a wheel (the sun disk).
The Celtic Arianrhod was an ancient earth goddess, and was known as the silver wheel.
I Ching is an ancient system of Chinese wisdom, and this oracle is symbolized as two circles within a larger circle which have been drawn to give the illusion that they are revolving.
In the mid 1500s it was reported by the Queen of France that Nostradamus also utilized magic circles and a magic mirror. He depicted these two magic circles in his illustrations to his son Cesar, and he called them The Wheel of Destiny of Nations and The Wheel of Time. (note: one is the same name as that from the ancient Sumerian story.)
The Greeks themselves have depicted a map of the known world as being round and flat, with an image of the Mediterranean region thereon.

Mr Pegg has discovered that all these descriptions refer to the Ancients cd-rom being seen by those ancient peoples, and that the Greek map is an attempt to drawn the Map Page from the cd-rom within the shape of the disk itself.
On the PPHC Study Group web site is a picture of an old Bible that has also depicted the impression of the cd-rom including its central hole over the image of the introduction's Sea and Sky Page from the Ancients cd-rom.

(See Windows 3 post for replies to PC 386 and Time Travel)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-12-2004 11:51 PM Eddy Pengelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2004 8:22 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded

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


Message 70 of 117 (115663)
06-16-2004 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Eddy Pengelly
06-16-2004 4:52 AM


Re: Outstanding replies
Yes, but, the use and context of the word David ('dabid' in Greek) directly refers to the Hebrew word #1732 David ('dvd' in Hebrew) in the biblical context. Although it is written and pronounced differently in the Greek language over a thousand years later, the David of the New Testament directly refers to the David of the Old Testament.
Thus it is not the Greek use of the word David that we are investigating, but the original Hebrew David*.

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.

So not only does the meaning in Strong's Concordance for Greek word "biblion' states 'roll', but an original Hebrew characteristic of it is a 'roll'. (H-word 4039 "roll".)

yeah, only it means "writing" which was usually on a scroll, yes.

For me to find out what 'roll' means, I refer to an English dictionary: "Roll" comes from the Latin 'rota' which meant "wheel". So what we now know as a roll was known as a wheel in Roman times.

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"

What were the other characteristics of this book as cited in Revelations 5:1 ?
"..a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals".

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.

So we have the same book being described by two biblical writers, one Hebrew, one Greek, as: A roll that is written within and on the backside and sealed with seven seals; being a book scored with marks as a record.

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...

The 1995 Ancients cd-rom by general definition is a digital versatile disk

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.

In the Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger, Coogan, Oxford University Press, 1993), it is noted that David is "one of the best-known biblical characters" but is "a curiously elusive figure. The Bible tells of his carving out an empire unmatched in ancient Israel's history. Elsewhere, however, in historical records from near that period (tenth century BCE), he is not so much as mentioned".

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.

In the general context of DVD meaning a digital versatile disk, a cd-rom that also contains video sequences can be called a dvd.

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.

he presents further evidence

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.

You say that I (by utilizing Mr Pegg's methods) am trying to assign different meanings to the Bible's words.
Mr Pegg points out that when many of the words in the Old English KJV Bible have their meanings and/or etymology checked to Strong's Concorndance, they do NOT use the given and known meaning, but one that is totally different yet appears to fit into the context of the rest of the given verse- and that when all the words are checked, they too have often been amended to fit in.

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"

Mr Pegg is utilizing the known decoding techniques of the Hebrews (PaRDeS)

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.

This includes using the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin original meanings of our 'modern' words (as outlined in a separate post) and tracing their etymology, as those meanings are closer to what was originally intended than what our words of 2,000 years later convey.

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.

When the original meanings and contexts are revealed from the words of the KJV Bible using Strong's Concordance, a whole new set of unexpected descriptions are produced - the primeval messages.

i find cooler, older meanings all the time. i quite enjoy it. i don't find time travel.

A 'flat disk that spins' has been documented in many ancient cultures

great!

doesn't look like a cd though.

Mr Pegg has discovered that all these descriptions refer to the Ancients cd-rom being seen by those ancient peoples,

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-16-2004 4:52 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-17-2004 4:34 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 117 (115964)
06-17-2004 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
06-16-2004 8:22 AM


Final replies for this thread
So not only does the meaning in Strong's Concordance for Greek word "biblion' states 'roll', but an original Hebrew characteristic of it is a 'roll'. (H-word 4039 "roll".)

Reply -- yeah, only it means "writing" which was usually on a scroll, yes.

No. I have to emphatically correct you on this one.
H-word 4039 "roll" comes from H-word 1556 which is a primitive root word meaning 'to roll'. (ie. to move around or rotate)
So it does NOT mean 'writing' as you say, but comes from an Hebrew verb that means 'to roll'.

We may have to agree to disagree on the Latin reference to "rota', but the Hebrew use of "roll" predates both the Latin and Greek, therefore the oldest terminology is the correct context - to roll, a verb - from which the Hebrew word 4039 "roll" was derived.

This means that the specific book described by Ezekiel had this characteristic - it rolled (or as the later Romans would say, it ROTAted).

What were the other characteristics of this book as cited in Revelations 5:1 ?
"..a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals".

Reply -- 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.

Again, I have to emphatically correct you. "from the soul"* does not appear in Strong's in reference to the "within" of Revelations 5:1.
Greek word "within" # 2081 means 'from inside' but comes from G-word #2080 which means 'inside', but this word comes from G-word #1519 which is a primary preposition meaning 'to' or 'into (indicating the point reached or entered)'.

G-word 3693 "backside" in the context of word 3700 with enclitic of source, means 'from the rear (as a secure aspect)'.
G-word 3700 means 'to gaze (with wide eyes, as at something remarkable)'.

So this specific "book" to which John was referring, had its contents securely written from the inside and from the rear, and the context of him seeing and describing this "book" made him wide eyed with amazement.
Would a normal scroll evoke this type of reaction ?
I think not, but I believe a cd-rom would.

* a reference to 'soul' is mentioned as a 2(a) notation in later religious electronic versions of Strongs, but this is not the original primary meaning as found in the 1984 printed edition - where soul is not mentioned.
ie. It is a later religious interpretation added to try to affirm the religious belief in souls.

otherwise the symbolic meanings of revelation would jump out, almost immediately.

There is a level of symbolism pertaining to the books of Moses, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelations (for example), but this symbolism has been created over a period of 3,000 years by the various religions that have perceived the descriptions in these books to be about something they could not understand, and have therefore covered over the original messages.

The original Hebrew meanings, and not the given religious scribes best guess, but the root and known Hebrew and Greek word meanings in the proper context of their etymology provide a different account to that which we have been told.

The above mentioned 'prophets' have done what they were told by "the messenger" - written down what they were told and what they saw.
The original Hebrew and Greek words used by these ancient people describe a set of images and sequence of images that exactly match to those seen when the 1995 Ancients cd-rom is viewed.

I hope you will check this out more thoroughly than you did with the Strong's examples.

There is a lot more that needs to be investigated. Let's move on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2004 8:22 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-19-2004 11:41 PM Eddy Pengelly has responded

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4198 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 72 of 117 (116784)
06-19-2004 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Eddy Pengelly
06-17-2004 4:34 AM


You have been granted this opportunity to explain yourself, Eddy.
I'm probably the least computer literate person on this forum, but there's a few logical mishaps that need to be corrected. I read the part of Peggie's website that was open to the public, and it said a bunch of stuff about what alledgedly happened. After a bunch of 'interpretations' based heavily upon assumiptions it said 'all of this is evidence for time travel', when in fact it was only evidence for stupid.

Look, if the computer's stuff was in English, how did John understand it? How did the two of them communicate when the time traveller probably didn't speak the same language as John? Even if he took some classes, I doubt our understanding of the ancient languages are 100% accurate; there's bound to be some mistakes that would lead to miscommunication between the two.

But even if all this is ignored, there's still the question of HOW DO PEOPLE TRAVEL BACK IN TIME?! That website gave no evidence for time travel nor explained how it worked. I could say that you were born because I went back in time, got a paintbrush and drew a picture of an elephant, then breathed life into it. Since I'm not an omnipotent being, most competent people would first ask, after rolling their eyes, "So how'd you get the ability to go back in time and breathe life into elephants?"

So why did he go back in time again? Wouldn't that create a time paradox? Has it already? Come on, Eddy! If you can't provide some real clean cut answers then nobody's going to listen. This isn't an omnipotent, incomprable God doing the work; this is a human being going back in time. I think the 'how' a mortal being could do all this needs some answering.

I know you said the last reply was final, but I'd appriciate it if you'd take the time to enlighten me; by the way you've been replying I'm certain you at least think you know what you're talking about?


Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-17-2004 4:34 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 11:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-20-2004 1:04 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 117 (116791)
06-19-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by One_Charred_Wing
06-19-2004 11:41 PM


B2B
It's you that have missunderstood.

The referenced CD-Rom (out of print for some time) was available several languages, German, English, Italian, Spanish. It obvious that the time traveler took the Aramaic Language version back with him.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-19-2004 11:41 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 117 (116803)
06-20-2004 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by One_Charred_Wing
06-19-2004 11:41 PM


Look, if the computer's stuff was in English, how did John understand it? How did the two of them communicate when the time traveller probably didn't speak the same language as John?

Jar has half answered your questions.
The referenced CD-Rom was available in several languages, German, English, French, and ITALIAN.
The Italian language is the language of Rome. John (of Revelations) was held in a Roman jail. Romans of that era spoke Latin. Scribes of the day were knowledgable people.

I personally wasn't there, and do not have information pertaining to whether the time traveller spoke Latin/Italian or not, nor whether he was shown the Italian version of the cd-rom. If he did, and he was, then this would provide a conclusive answer to your question.
He may not have understood the language, but was able to describe the 'sea of glass' and the 'four specific beats' that he viewed.

Did John understand the English numerals he saw on the Windows 3 File Manager ?
I agree with you - probably not.
But I base my answer on some evidence, and not just my opinion.
In Revelations 7:4 John states that he was told the number "I heard the number of those who were sealed", so I believe he did not understand English - or else he would have said "I saw the number of them".

Wouldn't that create a time paradox? Has it already?

Sort of.Yes. All these specific visits to the past caused a reaffirmation of the religious concepts that a time traveller was deemed to be 'a messenger from God' and therefore ancient people took the religious interpretation of his words rather than the historical messages he was trying to deliver.

So why did he go back in time again?

To tell each new (chronologically advanced) group of people he visited that the previous group 'got it wrong'. He repeated his messages and warnings, but already having a mind-set that only an angel of god could appear in a bright light and tell them about the future, they continued their religious conceptions.

You will find Mr Pegg's understanding for this in the "Different Attempts to Correct the Mistake" section on the "Pegg's Commentary" page of the SEMINARS menu item from the Member Area of the web site www.pphcstudygroup.org.au

There's still the question of HOW DO PEOPLE TRAVEL BACK IN TIME?!

I personally do not know how to build a time machine, or know all the science stuff needed to do so, but just because of my limited knowledge on this, it does not disprove that a someone else with the knowledge may have made a time machine operational - and used it.

Let's look at your logic.
You seem to be dismissing Mr Pegg's discoveries because you personally do not know how a time machine could work.

As an analogy, I could therefore state (using your logic) that motor vehicles could not exist or work.
Let's say I do not know how to build a motor vehicle or know enough about the electronics needed to make one work. So basing an entire judgement on my own limited perceptions, the idea of a motor vehicle is outrageous to me.

But they do exist, even though I do not know or comprehend how to make one.
I can even drive and operate a motor vehicle, even though I personally could not make one.

Mr Pegg's work is not studying time travel, it is examining the volume of written evidence from many of the world's ancient texts that describe images and sequences of images from modern objects - being a computer system and specific cd-roms. You can view this visual evidence from the Member Area of the PPHC-SG website.

Many people have viewed the evidence and have agreed that 'time trave' is a possible conclusion.

If I were to cross the street and get run over, maybe I would have to consider the possibility that it was due to a motor vehicle - or would I just be imagining my injuries.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-19-2004 11:41 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2004 1:21 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded
 Message 76 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-20-2004 1:57 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded
 Message 85 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 12:23 PM Eddy Pengelly has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 117 (116806)
06-20-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Eddy Pengelly
06-20-2004 1:04 AM


To tell each new (chronologically advanced) group of people he visited that the previous group 'got it wrong'.

Why wouldn't he just go back in time and tell himself not to have left at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-20-2004 1:04 AM Eddy Pengelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-20-2004 2:41 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019