Chapter Numbers and Verses are Inspired of the LORD.

a reply to: TerryDon79

yeah using perverted Bibles by scholars so called. NO one preserved by the hand of God. But then you would know a preserved Bible if it stood up and slapped you in the face.

So you so called corrections is just your opinions with the bible that are inspired and written of men not God, don't correct the Preserved word of God. I correct any greekified versions with the English constantly.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So your "preserved word of god" is wrong?

Why else would you need to "correct it"?

Numbers are of baal (the lord), correct.

Gods retarded imaginary friend, Satan the bean counter.

The word of God is the music of the unseen universe entering from the other side of the galactic core.. NOT a coded book that talks about it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Death has five letters, Satan has five letters who is also known as the death angel, Earth has five letters where men's bodies are laid after death and where death takes place on a daily basis.

Jesus has five letters as well. Silly, dense and dopey as well. The inspired writers of the Scriptures wrote in Hebrew and Greek (and they did not use chapter and verse numbers which were added later for convenience and practical reasons when referring to specific verses in the bible).

In the Greek Scriptures the word sa·ta·nasʹ applies to Satan the Devil in nearly all of its occurrences and is usually accompanied by the definite article ho.

Source: Satan: Insight, Volume 2

The first century Christians did not need chapter and verse numbers for their salvation. And certainly not any dopey insights on some kind of occult/hidden meaning or bible code behind them reserved for the elect and enlightened ones (Latin: illuminati) to discover (no need to repeat the argument about "hidden meaning" on page 1, it wasn't very convincing there and I doubt it can be rephrased more convincingly).

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Regnor

Yes, my bad I restated it it is the first natural related death.

So the first unnatural death is Abel.

Regnor mentioned: "The death of Abel is Gen 4:8." in response to "For Example Five is the number of death, the first death is seen in Gen 5:5 of Adam".

For some reason this convenient response to Regnor put a big smile on my face. Is it too dopey to mention that "natural death" has 12 letters and one space? Or that a restatement to "the first human death is seen in Gen 4:8 of Abel" might be an option as well? It might not work so well for the line of argumentation in the OP but if you already agree anyway...

I don't think it's important to convince people that it matters (natural death or unnatural death, whether or not the death mentioned in Gen 5:5 is of any concern concerning the number 5 or whatever else one wants to point out or use regarding this line of argumentation, etc.).

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Please everyone, if you are not interested in the Subject of the OP I suggest you go elsewhere. Rabbit trials and hijacking threads are prohibitive via the T&C of ATS.

Also, the "first death" would have been an animal for coverings for Adam and Eve. That's gen 3.

Technically, animals, plants and bacteria were dying long before Adam and Eve were created, but that's not the subject of Genesis 2-5 and onwards.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

Deaths of animals are you so sure? Does the text actually say an animal was killed?

Or could the skins be actual skin over their spiritual bodies[?]

I don't think so cause that would imply that Adam and Eve didn't have "actual skin" before the event mentioned in Genesis 3:21. Assuming that with "actual skin" you are referring to both the "skins" mentioned in Genesis 3:21 (as phrased in that question) as well as the human skin we can actually touch and feel, physical human skin. Not entirely sure what you mean to suggest with that question. An extra layer of human skin is added at Genesis 3:21? "God" made "coats of" human "skins, and clothed them"? Partially quoting from the KJV applying your suggestion concerning "actual skin".

I have to say your response to Regnor about natural death vs unnatural death was a cleverer cop-out. Since you can use it for the animals whose skins were used perhaps as well (unless the skins were used of animals that already died of natural causes, but that's less of an issue for those who already argue that animals didn't die of natural causes before Adam and Eve sinned, allthough technically Gen. 3:21 is already after they sinned).

Anyway...

WHO ADDED THE CHAPTERS?

English cleric Stephen Langton, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury, is credited with adding the chapter divisions to the Bible. He did this early in the 13th century C.E., when he was a teacher at the University of Paris in France.

Before Langton’s day, scholars had experimented with different ways of dividing the Bible into smaller sections or chapters, mainly, it seems, for reference purposes. You can imagine how much easier it would have been for them to find a passage if they had to search through only one chapter rather than a whole book, such as the book of Isaiah with its 66 chapters.

All of that, however, created a problem. The scholars produced many different and incompatible systems. In one of them, Mark’s Gospel was divided into almost 50 chapters, not the 16 we have now. In Paris in Langton’s day, there were students from many countries, and they brought with them Bibles from their native lands. However, lecturers and students could not share references. Why? Because the chapter divisions in their manuscripts simply did not match.

So Langton developed new chapter divisions. His system “caught the imagination of readers and scribes,” states The Book—A History of the Bible, and it “spread rapidly across Europe.” He gave us the chapter numbering we find in most Bibles today.

WHO ADDED THE VERSES?

Some 300 years later, in the middle of the 16th century, renowned French printer-scholar Robert Estienne made things even easier. His aim was to popularize Bible study. He realized how valuable it would be to have a uniform system of both numbered chapters and numbered verses.

Estienne did not come up with the idea of dividing the Bible text into verses. Others had done that already. Centuries earlier, Jewish copyists, for example, had divided the whole Hebrew Bible, or the part of the Bible commonly called the Old Testament, into verses but not into chapters. Again, as with the development of chapters, there was no uniform system.

Estienne divided the Christian Greek Scriptures, or what is called the New Testament, into a new set of numbered verses and combined them with those already in the Hebrew Bible. In 1553, he published the first complete Bible (an edition in French) with basically the same chapters and verses that most Bibles use today. Some people were critical and said that the verses broke the Bible text into fragments, making it appear as a series of separate and detached statements. But his system was quickly adopted by other printers.

A BOON FOR BIBLE STUDENTS

It seems to be such a simple idea—numbered chapters and verses. This gives each verse in the Bible a unique “address”—like a postal code. True, the chapter and verse divisions are not inspired by God, and they do at times break up the Bible text in strange places. But they make it easier for us to pinpoint quotes and to highlight or share individual verses that may have special meaning for us—just as we highlight expressions or phrases that we specially want to remember in a document or a book.

Convenient though the chapter-and-verse divisions are, always keep in mind the importance of getting the big picture—understanding the whole message God gave. Cultivate the habit of reading the context rather than just isolated verses. Doing so will help you to become more and more familiar with all “the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation.”—2 Timothy 3:15.

Source: Chapters and Verses—Who Put Them in the Bible?

The word "Bible" has 5 letters as well. Don't know how to feel or what else to say about that. The amount of letters in words is of no signifance or concern regarding what the bible calls "beneficial teaching" (NW, footnote) or "sound doctrine" (KJ) at 2 Timothy 4:3,4? You'd think that would be obvious to most people who profess to be Christians and believers in the bible, I guess there are always 'exceptions'. I hope I'm not underestimating the amount of exceptions making that terminology inaccurate. I'm beginning to wonder now how many people in the so-called King James Only movement or those impressed by their arguments or arguments that are convenient for their views argue this line of argumentation (or otherwise buy into it).

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: pthena

Did I already say that Death has five letters and that Satan the one who brings death, his name has five letters in it, or that earth has five letters where all this death is on going every day?

If so and the combined references I gave earlier should be clear enough to show that five is the number of death.

Jesus has 5 letters.
Grace has 5 letters.
Birth has 5 letters.
Idiot has 5 letters.
Moron has 5 letters.

Here are 8,887 5 letter words.

Oh of course, someone has to overdo it again...

The point should be obvious by now. I don't think anyone needs a link to 8887 examples, that's a little over the top and probably won't matter to Chesterjohn anyway, I think I know what kind of argument he would make in response to that, something to do with irrelevance, the only thing that matters in his line of argumentation is that "death" has five letters, and "Satan" and "earth".

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TerryDon79

see above I went back to correct it. sorry for any misspellings and the such. It is the AV though in case you never looked.

Well you still got it wrong.

It's "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Not
"And Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

But it's ok to make mistakes when you're only pretending

You know what I find interesting with websites such as biblehub that contain the KJV text, if you copy-paste a text like Genesis 3:21 it pastes "LORD" as "Lord" even though it shows "LORD" in capitals on the website (which was done to signify that the divine name is found in the Hebrew and not the Hebrew word for "the Lord", "Lord", "the LORD" or "lord"). Notice the "RD" on the website instead of "rd", yet the "L" looks a little bigger. Very sneaky if you know what's going on here. There's also no "the" in front of that in the Hebrew. A correct translation would be "Jehovah God". But there's a little game going on with making deceptive use of changing "LORD" to "Lord" as part of Trinitarian propaganda, especially in newer translations. But this particular play is very cunning and new to me, showing "LORD" but if someone copy-pastes it anywhere on the internet they'll paste it as "Lord" and most people will be none the wiser and it's even better hidden that it really says "Jehovah God". The Hebrew word for "Lord" (ʼAdho·naiʹ) does not appear anywhere in that verse.

Part of the reasons why people pretend that the divine name means "LORD", "Lord", "the LORD" or "The Lord" and yet others pretend that "Adonai" is a name for God (sometimes part of the false story that God has many names in a demonstration of 2 Timothy 4:3,4).

In the video below at 7:00 you can see another example of this "LORD>Lord" 'downgrading' game, if that's an appropiate terminology, being played by the NIV and NASB translators (there's also some conflation going on in this game that often accompanies Trinitarian argumentation regarding the Lord whose name is Jesus):

And regarding the verse mentioned at the ending of that video by the translators of the NIV (and their acknowledgement regarding that verse and the beginning of their answer to the question from the bible reader they were answering):

what I was trying to explain to the naysayers of Noiden and Terry was if our mathematics (including quantum mathematics) if it is based on an inaccurate system of 364.2 year (the whole circumference of the earth/sun circle is not a circle, it is an oval. So applying the 360 degree of a perfect circle to it we find our 360 has shorter degrees than those closer to the sun hence the 365 day year.. This shows that ten degrees have narrower points of the oval further out and longer as they approach the sun. Our mathematicians try and make compensation for this but a circle is not an oval and cannot be measured the same no matter what science wants to tell you. it still takes you longer to travel an oval track than a circle one that is equal to the central equal distance of the oval track.

Also the day is 23.7 showing that the rotation of the earth is less than 24 hours but we round it up and subtract days and added days to the months of our calendar to average out the time to 24 hours. God says he made the day and the night the same period of time. But even if we did equal them out mathematically they do not come out to a whole number hence the addition of a day every four years under our current calendar or a whole month under the Jewish calendar every seven years.

the Firmament, though solid like ice it is still moving away from the earth, (that is why all the universe looks as if it is moving away from the earth and not some other point in our galaxy or even our solar system), this fact has not been disprove by scientist and mathematicians. This movement away from the earth is why there is a oval effect on our solar system as well as our galaxy and even other galaxies in the universe, and not perfect ovals mind you but obtuse ones, meaning usually narrower at one end and wider at the other, like an egg. This same expansion is the cause of the red shift that science likes to tout as proof of true time references for distances from one part of the universe to another. But the universe is in a constant flux that ever changes and cannot be trusted to determine distances or time calculations in 100 years that same shift will show a change in the first measurements made 100 years earlier. We are already seeing scientist differing on red shift calculations made on the same objects in space but at different times.

Remember from their calculations they made these huge flat disc for the bottom of the moon lander t keep it from sinking into the cosmic dust collected on the moons surface. Because they figured that if the solar system was billions of years old then the dust on the moons surface had to be tens of feet thick. But when they landed they found it not even a foot thick. These are the same guys we trust to tell us that they are right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to correct Time measurement (a quantum, is a method of measuring). You cannot no matter what they say make a circle and an oval equal to each other in measurement circumferential if we do then 360 degrees ends way before the oval ends meet in measurements calculations.

Now if your basis for your math is based on faulty day and night, monthly and yearly cycles which they are, then one must admit that math is not a perfect science.

Remember how they say the moon will move further away and wont cause solar eclipses in 6 million years (un-provable except with incorrect mathematical based math). Incorrect solar eclipses will still be happening, barring God does not change things before then, 6 million years from now but not a often, they will still be calculable as they are today.

scientist changed the difference in distance between points and made them the same in order to still claim the ovals and circles are the same in degrees. They make the difference up but either a single degrees is the same differences in a circle and an oval or they are not, making an oval have more degrees than 360.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So you came back to say maths was wrong, again?

You also got the amount of years wrong, again. (600 million, not 6 million)

Prove maths is wrong or admit you’re making stuff up, again.

a reply to: TerryDon79

it doesn't matter if 6 million of 600 million it is un-provable except with incorrect mathematical basis.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Prove it’s wrong.

Basic maths (current distance and speed the moon is moving away) gives us the 600 million year answer.

So far you have “wahwahwahwah! Maths is wrong!”

a reply to: ChesterJohn

We can all agree YOUR mathematics is flawed. Mainly because you make things up in calculations. You do not know the difference in metric or imperial.

So yes mathematics is flawed in your hands.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Quantum mathematics ..... *face palm*
It is quantum MECHANICS which is a disipline in Physics. Not a type of mathematics!

Way to go ace. Get back to us when you know the difference in scientific disciplines and why mathematics is a tool not a science!

a reply to: Noinden

quantum measurements in the sense of the differences within math itself is a term used within mathematics such as quantum Alegbra. Time quantum means a sense of differences of measurement of time that is within time itself the current measurement of time is flawed, and math is based on the flawed time measurement. The correct time is not qualified in the 23.7 or the 364.2 but in the correct time quantum with in or outside the current time measurement, that you have failed to even try and disprove. From everlasting to Everlasting known in time quantum as eternal.

Find the correct time quantum (a measurement within time) of Eternity and you will have true basis for all mathematics and then you will have correct dating systems for rocks, fossils, distances from one galaxy to the other without one group saying it is incorrect a few years later.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Where are you getting “23.7 hours in a day” and “364.2 days in a year” from?

There’s actually MORE than 24 hours in a day (1.1585 milliseconds, to be more precise). Hence why we have an extra day (leap year) to counter the extra 1.1585 milliseconds per day.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

*double face palm*

Quantum algebra?

Quantum mechanics uses mathematics.... Nothing special. Advanced? Yes special to it? No.

Stop making stuff up. I've actually done quantum calculations as a undergrad. In my physical chemistry third and forth year papers... This was in the early 90s.....just stop now while you have a modicum of dignity left

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Do you get why we have leap days ?


www.timeanddate.com...

a reply to: Noinden

yep sure do but you still don't know what eternal is?