Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued

a reply to: iterationzero

You're wrong on the number of what you've termed "punctuation groups" in DNA -- there are three stop codons and one start codon. Which means you'd have to have four "Mother" letters according to your scheme here. Now you're claiming that there are only two "punctuation groups" -- start and stop, but that still doesn't jibe with your scheme of having three "Mother" letters.

There is a reason I do not include 3 stop codons, just as there is a reason I do not discuss the 23rd letter of Hebrew.

I will give you a riddle to solve. If you get it, you might know why there are 2 I mention and 22 letters of Hebrew I use as a comparison. As you say, there are 3, just as there are 23 letters of Hebrew originally. Between the parallel of one of the stop codons and the riddle, there is something hidden at a right angle.

The riddle: The GHAH is in the Eye. The Ear opens. The Tav is the marker for the end, but what stops Creation (all things to an end)? What is the parallel to the one I do not mention? Why a Goat and why Dark?

There are some things on ATS I will not reveal. This is one. Since you asked, I can at least give you a clue. Why does the Bible stick to parables rather than simply telling someone the answer? Why is seeking necessary? If you are truly interested, then you can simply prove it to yourself. You seem very skeptical. Try proving it to yourself for a change.

This offer is open to anyone since you asked. Use my previous answer to guide you. Don't blame me if you get this. You will only confirm this thread as accurate.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Jesus didn't write Proverbs. No Jewish Rabbi will tell you that verse is Jesus or the Angel of the Lord talking. It does, in fact, refer to the Jewish belief in the pre-existence of the soul.

You still haven't answered my question, "Do you believe that the Angel of Lord, who carried the word of God to mankind in the Old Testament was Jesus?"

That is also really silly to say Cyrus was messiah.

Of course Cyrus the Great was a Messiah.

The Hebrew word m�š�ah means 'anointed one' and may indicate Jewish priests, prophets and kings. During the sixth century BCE, the exiled Jews in Babylonia started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home; several written prophecies were fulfilled when the Persian king Cyrus the Great did in fact allow them to return. In the second century BCE, the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became relevant again. Some people were looking forward to a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom; others, like the author of the Psalms of Solomon, stated that the Messiah was a charismatic teacher who gave the correct interpretation of Mosaic law, was to restore Israel and would judge mankind. Jesus of Nazareth was considered a Messiah; a century later, Simon bar Kochba. The idea of an eschatological king has been present in Judaism ever since.
www.livius.org...

If you read the Septuagint, King Saul, King David, King Solomon and Cyrus the Great were all anointed and all bear the title "Christ". There are no prophecies that foretell God himself incarnating in human form as "The Messiah". The coming Messiah, that the Jews were waiting for was expected to be a normal human being, not a magic god/man.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Jesus didn't write Proverbs. No Jewish Rabbi will tell you that verse is Jesus or the Angel of the Lord talking. It does, in fact, refer to the Jewish belief in the pre-existence of the soul.

You still haven't answered my question, "Do you believe that the Angel of Lord, who carried the word of God to mankind in the Old Testament was Jesus?"

That is also really silly to say Cyrus was messiah.

Of course Cyrus the Great was a Messiah.

The Hebrew word m�š�ah means 'anointed one' and may indicate Jewish priests, prophets and kings. During the sixth century BCE, the exiled Jews in Babylonia started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home; several written prophecies were fulfilled when the Persian king Cyrus the Great did in fact allow them to return. In the second century BCE, the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became relevant again. Some people were looking forward to a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom; others, like the author of the Psalms of Solomon, stated that the Messiah was a charismatic teacher who gave the correct interpretation of Mosaic law, was to restore Israel and would judge mankind. Jesus of Nazareth was considered a Messiah; a century later, Simon bar Kochba. The idea of an eschatological king has been present in Judaism ever since.
www.livius.org...

If you read the Septuagint, King Saul, King David, King Solomon and Cyrus the Great were all anointed and all bear the title "Christ". There are no prophecies that foretell God himself incarnating in human form as "The Messiah". The coming Messiah, that the Jews were waiting for was expected to be a normal human being, not a magic god/man.

Did you read Bible for Dummys?
Genesis 3:15
Start of the story, there is only one that was foretold to come and only one can fulfill it.
The Isrealites were always crying for a Judge to lead them out of the stinkhole they always got themselves into, that is not anywhere near what the prophesied Messiah would be and when he came they rejected him even though he fulfilled all prophesy concerning him.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Start of the story, there is only one that was foretold to come and only one can fulfill it.

Nonsense. Cyrus the Great fulfilled the prophecy and freed the Israelites from their bondage. He was "The Messiah" for them. Every time things got rough, the Israelites prayed for God to send them a Messiah.

The Hebrew word mashiach ("anointed") is used in the Old Testament to identify a person in special relationship to God. The non-technical use of the term is simply to designate "one anointed” [with oil and/or the Holy Spirit], but especially one who had been set apart by God and enabled for a special task.

----

The connection of the term "Messiah" as applied to an anointed king appears especially strong, and was used in a prophetic sense of the coming Davidic ruler. Both Second Samuel and the Psalms refer to King David as the "anointed one" (mashiach) whose descendants will rule forever.

www.worldofthebible.com...

King David was a Messiah. He killed Goliath.

Saul was the first Messiah. He was Israel's first King.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

when he came they rejected him even though he fulfilled all prophesy concerning him.

Where did you learn that?

Im sorry but you should actually look into this a little more...

He did not fulfill all the so called "prophecies" concerning "the Messiah"

that is called Christian propaganda... Also known as Nonsense

Hey have you read the book by David Bohm, called Wholeness and the implicate order ?

a reply to: AlephBet

The only thing I'll blame you for is obfuscating every single time you're called out on a point of inaccuracy. You retreat to the same weak argument -- ironic for one who claims a name self-defined as "strong house" -- whenever this happens: that you are possessed of some hidden knowledge that magically makes all of your inconsistencies and inaccuracies disappear. Deny ignorance, remember?

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: TzarChasm

Here on Earth you will never be free and are always subject to dictatorship. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Free your mind of ALL the BS you have been TOLD and think for yourself while you educate yourself...

IF you even care about spirituality and or life after death in this world.

How do you know what God has or doesn't have that may be similar to a "congress"?

What the OP laid out for you is an eye opener. One that has taken years of study to conclude and he is offering you a gift.... a gift of Truth without the years it took him to figure this out.

DNA = THE LANGUAGE = Jesus

We are all in him and he in us = DNA = Life

We understand the claim, but the title of the thread AND the OP have stated that this has been proven. It has not. It is 100% based on personal beliefs and faith. If you choose to believe this stuff, I have no problem with it, just don't go around stating that it's truth or proven. That is the big issue here along with using words out of context to suggest different meanings. None of that can be backed up.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GetHyped

omg put all the definitions together and see what you get. The root is ration. All definitions are formed from the root and have common ground but the sound is always the same and pointing to the base. To ration is to save a portion or divide something. Therefor if i am rational then that means i am making divisions or giving portions in order to understand a concept of something. Like i said it was surprising to hear you use the word rational in the context you did because it so clearly defines the basis of the thread.

This is where the argument falls off a cliff. Not every word shares the same meaning as its root. Modern English is very complex. He tried to claim that evolution meant something different because it contains "volution". This is nothing more than a semantics argument, based on absolutely nothing aside from words that are spelled similarly.

vo·lu·tion
1. literary - a rolling or revolving motion.
2. a single turn of a spiral or coil.

ev·o·lu·tion
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

These are 2 words that are not related IN THE LEAST, yet are equivocated by the OP because they contain "volution". You are searching for alternate meanings in places where they can't be found. It's like saying that "catastrophe" has to do with felines because it has the word "cat" in it. Nothing the OP is saying makes any logical sense. If you can explain it, then go ahead and try, but thus far no "proof" has been provided whatsoever as claimed in the title and OP. Root words are completely irrelevant to this conversation.

a reply to: AlephBet

speaking in riddles doesnt make you sound clever. it makes you sound deliberately obfuscate. honestly i feel like you want us all to be confused because it makes it easier to pull a fast one.

a reply to: Barcs
True not every word shares the same meaning as the root word but the sound made is always the same therefore you are saying one thing but meaning another. That is true babble if you ask me. If the sound is what has power then who really knows what is being said although most of the time we understand what is being implied.

BTW you do not have the root word of the words you mentioned. It is volve and all the definitions stem from that. To roll or turn that is the common ground there.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: AlephBet

The only thing I'll blame you for is obfuscating every single time you're called out on a point of inaccuracy. You retreat to the same weak argument -- ironic for one who claims a name self-defined as "strong house" -- whenever this happens: that you are possessed of some hidden knowledge that magically makes all of your inconsistencies and inaccuracies disappear. Deny ignorance, remember?

I answered you in a thread, but I won't give it away easily. You won't see it, even if I told you, unless you learn to find it. Once you have the tools and know how to use them, then you will know why I answered the way I did. You cannot cast pearls unless the one receiving gets the nature of how the pearl was developed. Why does money have value? You want me to just give it to you and I can't. I can only show you how to find it (work for it). Typically, I can try to explain it with clarity. On this one point, the ball is in your court.

When you say that I pretend to have some higher knowledge, this is not the case. We all have this same information within. The trick is to mediate that thought with meta-cognition and bring it out where we see it. You know it, but until you know what you know, then you are just left trying to reason why you forgot. It's that nagging feeling when you have a thought on the tip of your tongue, but can't remember; a pressing appointment that you know you are missing. Nous is a prize.

Here is your thread on the stop codons: Mystery and a Riddle

originally posted by: sapien82
Hey have you read the book by David Bohm, called Wholeness and the implicate order ?

I'll check it out on Amazon and read the free chapters. I did see THIS. I think I have read it before, and in quotes in other places now that I see what it is.

a reply to: Barcs

I'll jump in to just say this. A pearl is developed around an grain of sand as an irritation. What makes its round shape? Involution and evolution are on the same path up, or rising, but this is not a direction by our cardinal directions. Rather, involution is a process of something circling in, then out. An acorn to an oak tree is a giant version of this. The acorn is not the oak tree no more than the oak tree is the acorn. The information (archetype of information and letters) is in formed into soil. The rising of the oak tree from the letters is a direction outside the letters themselves. In all directions as a matter of fact. How can an invisible conception of fractal geometry express into this?

Fractals 'in' nature came from a higher dimensional state. Our cardinal directions are lower than the 'up' I am showing here as a direction. Down is also a direction in the process. When a 2D plane of creatures is moving from down to up in a sequence of frames, a 3D creature could see them coming, the going by being at both right angles (orthogonally above). The 2D creatures only sees front, back, right and left. You see two more directions as a 3D creature since you can see their up and down. By this, you can infer how something above you (up) can see your future and past as up and down.

Now, apply this to your conversation of the letters. Where are they descending from and what are they causing in the whirlwind / vortex? This is a vortex acting on more dimensions than our time/space reality. Are we moving in space, or is the fabric moving around us? Yes.

a reply to: AlephBet

I answered you in a thread, but I won't give it away easily. You won't see it, even if I told you, unless you learn to find it. Once you have the tools and know how to use them, then you will know why I answered the way I did.

in other words, your nonsense gobbledygook will only make sense if we stop thinking about it and gulp the kool aid you so helpfully give us.

Why does money have value? You want me to just give it to you and I can't.

you are awfully unhelpful for being so knowledgable.

When you say that I pretend to have some higher knowledge, this is not the case. We all have this same information within. The trick is to mediate that thought with meta-cognition and bring it out where we see it.

meditate it with "awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes." that sounds like code for cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: MamaJ
So I guess this is why the Word is indeed the building block of Life.

Its our HIS-STORY in the making....

Love it!

As always, you get it. Thank you.

I am pretty sure this is how cults get started.

Always be weary of those who claim to have it all figured out especially when they refuse to explain how.


Carrots

originally posted by: AlephBet


I answered you in a thread, but I won't give it away easily. You won't see it, even if I told you, unless you learn to find it. Once you have the tools and know how to use them, then you will know why I answered the way I did. You cannot cast pearls unless the one receiving gets the nature of how the pearl was developed. Why does money have value? You want me to just give it to you and I can't. I can only show you how to find it (work for it). Typically, I can try to explain it with clarity. On this one point, the ball is in your court.

Come on... This whole thing is a put on right? That has to be the biggest crock of overtly obfuscated sh# I've seen from you yet and to be honest, the one thing ill give you a lot of credit for is your ability to string together an inane amount of large words ,that don't go together in the English language, into some of the most bafflingly meaningless sentences I've ever encountered and that's coming from someone who mastered the fine art of bullsh#ing my way through essays years ago.

I'm just having a hard time at this stage believing that you, regardless of your screen name du jour, aren't using this as some sort of writing excercise for a psychology experiment. Honestly, how can you have the stones to come up with a thread title that is SO definitive with the claims of proof so absolutely definitive that said proof simply can not be argued with and then back up your over the top claims with psychobabble gobbledygook gook and nothing remotely resembling a actual answer? Its just ridiculous to make such inane claims and then spout such nonsensical bull# and think your actually taking the high road and sharing some sort of esoteric knowledge that exists nowhere but your own mind.

I have no problem with engaging in a rational dialogue with all manner of people that I fundamentally disagree with but beyond the title of your thread there's absolutely nothing of substance or value to even try to engage in a discussion with you on because you refuse to actually engage in a dialogue. You're so busy in your own headspace thinking you are so overly enlightened that you forget that you need to actually speak to people in a fashion that resides in a logical realm. Otherwise how the hell is a home going to know what you're going on about? Not that you give the impression that you care about that but seriously...believe whatever makes you happy and a better person but you can't realistically expect anything positive to come from talking down to people and running in circles with the holier than thou projectionism routine.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: AlephBet


I answered you in a thread, but I won't give it away easily. You won't see it, even if I told you, unless you learn to find it. Once you have the tools and know how to use them, then you will know why I answered the way I did. You cannot cast pearls unless the one receiving gets the nature of how the pearl was developed. Why does money have value? You want me to just give it to you and I can't. I can only show you how to find it (work for it). Typically, I can try to explain it with clarity. On this one point, the ball is in your court.

Come on... This whole thing is a put on right? That has to be the biggest crock of overtly obfuscated sh# I've seen from you yet and to be honest, the one thing ill give you a lot of credit for is your ability to string together an inane amount of large words ,that don't go together in the English language, into some of the most bafflingly meaningless sentences I've ever encountered and that's coming from someone who mastered the fine art of bullsh#ing my way through essays years ago.

I'm just having a hard time at this stage believing that you, regardless of your screen name du jour, aren't using this as some sort of writing excercise for a psychology experiment. Honestly, how can you have the stones to come up with a thread title that is SO definitive with the claims of proof so absolutely definitive that said proof simply can not be argued with and then back up your over the top claims with psychobabble gobbledygook gook and nothing remotely resembling a actual answer? Its just ridiculous to make such inane claims and then spout such nonsensical bull# and think your actually taking the high road and sharing some sort of esoteric knowledge that exists nowhere but your own mind.

I have no problem with engaging in a rational dialogue with all manner of people that I fundamentally disagree with but beyond the title of your thread there's absolutely nothing of substance or value to even try to engage in a discussion with you on because you refuse to actually engage in a dialogue. You're so busy in your own headspace thinking you are so overly enlightened that you forget that you need to actually speak to people in a fashion that resides in a logical realm. Otherwise how the hell is a home going to know what you're going on about? Not that you give the impression that you care about that but seriously...believe whatever makes you happy and a better person but you can't realistically expect anything positive to come from talking down to people and running in circles with the holier than thou projectionism routine.

took the words right out of my mouth. its almost like im eavesdropping on some conversation between spies using coded language. and this is how we are denying ignorance?

Aleph, is it true you've written a book?