DNA the Most holy place

originally posted by: DpatC

originally posted by: schuyler
My response:

"Your God is the best God.
In fact, he's the only God.
All other Gods are ridiculous, made up rubbish.
Not yours though. Yours is real"

Pay attention to Ricky. He's trying to tell you something.

Im not a God and will never be one...I'm just a pilgrim who will one day return to the land of the Tuatha Dé.

Good Lord. Whoosh!!!!!

originally posted by: DpatC

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't understand why it represents all that, the reason

God created us for love, you are projecting something else, why?

God taught us to love others and Him, to get our hearts right, not our cells

Can't you see past GOD? Can't you see past Heaven or Hell?
What is the heart made from - Cell's
As I said the majority of people who read text's like the Bible can only see one thing.Don't worry I wish you well on your journey.
Ever wonder who GOD's creator is?

I am not worried for me

Please explain the point of representation, why do you think the tabernacle represented the cell or whatever
Great theory but seems pointless and vague and irrelevant

Your journey seems pointless if understanding anything Christ taught isnt about love
Gnosticism seems your issue, looking for hidden knowledge, its not there if it is, its not important

You are seeing too much because you are not using common sense and projecting

Have you actually taken the time to read that online book. The second chapter : Relates DNA to Bible Construction.
PLease before before further emaressment, PLease read that book in it's entitity

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: DpatC

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't understand why it represents all that, the reason

God created us for love, you are projecting something else, why?

God taught us to love others and Him, to get our hearts right, not our cells

Can't you see past GOD? Can't you see past Heaven or Hell?
What is the heart made from - Cell's
As I said the majority of people who read text's like the Bible can only see one thing.Don't worry I wish you well on your journey.
Ever wonder who GOD's creator is?

I am not worried for me

Please explain the point of representation, why do you think the tabernacle represented the cell or whatever
Great theory but seems pointless and vague and irrelevant

Your journey seems pointless if understanding anything Christ taught isnt about love
Gnosticism seems your issue, looking for hidden knowledge, its not there if it is, its not important

You are seeing too much because you are not using common sense and projecting

It's not hidden knowledge and you think DNA is anti Jesus or the Chruch - Wow you folk have a lot to learn. My advice stick with Jesus as you are not ready for the next level. But remember Jesus di say that who ever followed him would be the Light of LIfe. Jesus aint back, he will never be coming back is but the life of Light is and well this may upset a few long held beliefs .
In the meantime I love thos song by the B52's Rock Lobster
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: DpatC

Oh dear me

As if I care about DNA, it's all in your head
I don't think DNA is anti anything, just think you are clutching at straws and making up stuff that isn't anywhere.
Maybe it is, that's why I asked you what the relationhip was so many times

I am guessing you are not a Christian and have no real idea what you are talking about

As for reading your book, nothing makes me want to know more about what it teaches, nothing you have explained anyway

I am embarrassed for you, for your contrived subject and your lack of capacity to engage your audience

Again, to what purpose does this theory serve, just fun in your head?

Also glad it was rock lobster not love shack, that's a commendable effort, better thought out than the thread subject at least

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DpatC

Oh dear me

As if I care about DNA, it's all in your head
I don't think DNA is anti anything, just think you are clutching at straws and making up stuff that isn't anywhere.
Maybe it is, that's why I asked you what the relationhip was so many times

I am guessing you are not a Christian and have no real idea what you are talking about

As for reading your book, nothing makes me want to know more about what it teaches, nothing you have explained anyway

I am embarrassed for you, for your contrived subject and your lack of capacity to engage your audience

Again, to what purpose does this theory serve, just fun in your head?

Also glad it was rock lobster not love shack, that's a commendable effort, better thought out than the thread subject at least

Sir there is alot of ways to read a religious and an occult text.I am not responsible for your ignorance . You can't see the role that DNA has had in your creation texts - Sir my I suggest that you f@@k off back to whatever hole you came from and start reading

originally posted by: DpatC
For our main reference, we will be using the best English translation available, the 1611 King James Version.

Nope. Sorry. I disagree. KJV's translate Hebrew's "reem" as fictional unicorn in bed time story is mind boggling dumbness. Plus KJV English is not even victorian era literature. It's an archaic form of English literature.

originally posted by: DpatC
Before we even begin to open the Bible and examine its pages, we will first look at the actual physical construction of the Bible itself to see if any Genetic clues have been left for us to discover.

It begins

www.mostholyplace.com...

There is alot here so my thinking is that this can open up diaglogue to a more sensible discussion. Fingers crossed.

Your link is based of controversial and authentically problematic source, such as 1John 5:7. The only verse in the bible to explicitly mentioned trinity god. The problem is, this verse is the well known comma Johannes. It's an interpolation added in 16th century. We have older manuscripts to compare with, and comma Johannes is definitely isn't the work of first century scripture.

I suggest you read some history about Bible compilation, controversies and textual criticisms, because the bible is not pen by single author. It's collective work of many authors from various place and time. You may also need to read some historical background about the making of KJV first edition and their dubious source, the so called Textus Receptus.

a reply to: DpatC

This is great stuff

a reply to: DpatC

I asked a very simple, even childlike question
That question is why, why would the tabernacle be built like DNA, what purpose would it serve
And...
You got nothing...
Not even a smart enough lip...
Just a hissy fit...

If that's your best, then maybe I suggest go away, do some growing up, reading, thinking and have another go

Don't be a cry baby

a reply to: Raggedyman

Another form of proof that God exists. No matter who the author was nobody had any way of knowing what dna is until recently. Let alone the structure of dna let alone the structure of a cell. For there to even be a similar coincidence at all is relatively impossible. Only God the creatorof all things could put this hidden information in not only the Bible, but the actual tabernacle when it was built. No one had a clue until recently.

There a simple answer.

a reply to: Mystery_Lady

Yeah but nah
The correlation is loose at best
I don't need a flaccid link between the tabernacle and DNA to prove God exists, what would my faith be if it needed that
No non believer is going to be influenced by the possibility either. If the reason was fleshed out, explained, given a relevant assumption, but no, certainly not enough to information , well at this stage at least

We are called to study Gods word, I am not saying the theory is wrong, just asking for a reason

originally posted by: micpsi
If anyone wants to explore the mathematical connection between the biblical Tree of Life (the Etz Chayim of Kabbalah), the I Ching system of 64 hexagrams and the 64 codons of DNA - in other words, the mathematical basis of human DNA - study Article 46 at:
smphillips.mysite.com...

Thanks for that Link. It's been added to my bookmarks for study anreference

a reply to: DpatC

God is the sole supreme creator being.

Not according to the 1611 KJV bible and the Apostle John of the Christian NT.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You won't find that in the Quran or Veda literature --------------

a reply to: EasternShadow

Nope. Sorry. I disagree. KJV's translate Hebrew's "reem" as fictional unicorn in bed time story is mind boggling dumbness. Plus KJV English is not even victorian era literature. It's an archaic form of English literature. Text

I do not understand your way of interpretation of literature. Please explain to me why archaic literature is subservient to your idea of modern literature. What has archaic to do with truth in literature? That is nonsense to say the least. The original Septuagint Torah is lost but the dead sea scroll Torah of Numbers 23:22 [4Q27] is extant and dated as between 50-1 B.C.--

This translation that is available is translated from the Hebrew and not Greek and is understood as "wild ox" and neither reem or unicorn.

There are valid reasons involved in the use of different translations. It depends upon the interpreters understanding of his/her geographic location in life. An example would be if one were in the desert location of Arabia then their understanding might be the Arabian ox [antelope]. Others may not even understand what that is and call it a mountain ox. Still others may understand it to be rhinoceros or buffalo or wild bull, or perhaps a reem or unicorn. Does this sound silly to you? Well it shouldn't because each and every one of those names are in various English printed bibles available today for various peoples.

But I noted your superior mindset in that you believe a word can change the entire story. Not true at all. You do not have the autographs of the texts and in that respect you do not know what you are talking about in this realm of theology. And until you read the autographs word for word of the authors of that literature you know no more than any one here on ATS. The story is not centered on one word nor does it distract the intent of the author. The KJV literature may have differences from other translators but you can not know the valid interpretations until you can read the autographs . Even then you will have differences in culture understandings of the same literature. Try to understand people and not be so harsh.

originally posted by: Seede
I do not understand your way of interpretation of literature. Please explain to me why archaic literature is subservient to your idea of modern literature. What has archaic to do with truth in literature? That is nonsense to say the least.

So Using over 300 obscure words in their meaning is not nonsense to you?
Archaic or obscure King James era words explained

originally posted by: Seede
The original Septuagint Torah is lost but the dead sea scroll Torah of Numbers 23:22 [4Q27] is extant and dated as between 50-1 B.C.--

This translation that is available is translated from the Hebrew and not Greek and is understood as "wild ox" and neither reem or unicorn.

It is re'em, also reëm (Hebrew: רְאֵם‬) mentioned 8 times in Hebrew Bible.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Seede
There are valid reasons involved in the use of different translations. It depends upon the interpreters understanding of his/her geographic location in life. An example would be if one were in the desert location of Arabia then their understanding might be the Arabian ox [antelope]. Others may not even understand what that is and call it a mountain ox. Still others may understand it to be rhinoceros or buffalo or wild bull, or perhaps a reem or unicorn. Does this sound silly to you? Well it shouldn't because each and every one of those names are in various English printed bibles available today for various peoples.

You are right. There is better word. It is "wild ox" in English. Surely Shakespeare genius knows this word.

Unicorn is a well known mythical horse. Even kids from ancient Indus Valley knows what a unicorn is.

Unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a kid with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China. The earliest description in Greek literature of a single-horned (Greek monokerōs, Latin unicornis) animal was by the historian Ctesias (c. 400 BCE), who related that the Indian wild ass was the size of a horse, with a white body, purple head, and blue eyes, and on its forehead was a cubit-long horn coloured red at the pointed tip, black in the middle, and white at the base.

www.britannica.com...

But heck, let use well known fairy tales mythical unicorn instead, because the Bible is fairy tales for kids.

Does this sound genius to you?

originally posted by: Seede
But I noted your superior mindset in that you believe a word can change the entire story. Not true at all.

Yes it is.
1. Word like unicorn is well known fairy tale creature. A lies. God does not lies. Therefore, there is no room for the Bible to lie.
2. Using over 300 words which are obscure in their meaning is not honesty. It's plain deception meant to confuse the readers.
3. God does not deceive men with obscure words, so that they could sin freely.

originally posted by: Seede
You do not have the autographs of the texts and in that respect you do not know what you are talking about in this realm of theology.

We have thousands old manuscripts to compare with. In fact, the bible has the most abundant ancient sources, compare to other historical texts. The evidences are strong enough to justify over 300 obscure words in KJV + interpolations + Comma Johannes + Mythical Unicorn referred by both ancient India and Chinese civilizations, long before Latin word unicornis.

I do know what is in the realm of theology.

originally posted by: Seede
And until you read the autographs word for word of the authors of that literature you know no more than any one here on ATS.

I don't claim to know more than anyone here on ATS. That is why, I said, even ancient Indus Valley kids knows what a unicorn is. It doesn't need KJV Shakespeare genius to figure it out.

originally posted by: Seede
The story is not centered on one word nor does it distract the intent of the author. The KJV literature may have differences from other translators but you can not know the valid interpretations until you can read the autographs . Even then you will have differences in culture understandings of the same literature. Try to understand people and not be so harsh.

The story is KJV translators wrote it for political agenda for King James. I do have the right to bash something so popular and stupid like unicorn.

Not to mention THIS!
www.wordproject.org...

originally posted by: micpsi
If anyone wants to explore the mathematical connection between the biblical Tree of Life (the Etz Chayim of Kabbalah), the I Ching system of 64 hexagrams and the 64 codons of DNA - in other words, the mathematical basis of human DNA - study Article 46 at:
smphillips.mysite.com...

thank u

Thanks for that....cool

Thread topic is quite valid....op is speaking nuts and bolts on a third interpretation of scriptfure.....

We're wonders....the way our bodies heal themselves.....the brains connection optimization.......wonderfully made

That's the thing with kabbala,
it's all about blood-lines, family tree dna and the keter (regal crown)
Nothing to do with ethics, morals or
The Crown Of Thorns (the Only real crown)

a reply to: ToneDeaf

Not really. Kabbalah explains our nature. The Tree of Life denoting gates which can open different levels of consciousness. The three columns and gates of the tree are that which hindu's call the three channels and chakras.

The left channel (moon channel) is called path of destruction (used by black magicians that oppose God) whereas right channel (sun channel) is used by white magicians that seek angelic powers (path of Angels). So staff of Hermes has two snake denoting the whole tree whereas Rod of Asclepius with one snake depicts angelic power of healing etc. Those that seek to serve God do not seek gifts/powers, they open the central channel (inner court) by loving all, instead of clinging to self ego/self desires.

a reply to: EasternShadow

So Using over 300 obscure words in their meaning is not nonsense to you? Archaic or obscure King James era words explained

If a word is obscure to you then don't use that source. Very easy to understand. Just don't use the source that confuses you. The KJV bible has a concordance which explains its source. If you disagree with that source then simply forget it and use a more simple source for your understanding.
-------------------
In Jewish folklore, the re'em was larger than a mountain and could dam the river Jordan with its dung. To survive during the deluge, Noah had to strap its horns to the side of the Ark so that its nostril could protrude into the Ark allowing the animal to breathe. King David, while still a shepherd, mistook its horn for a mountain and climbed it, then the re'em got up, carrying David up to the heavens. He prayed to God to save him, so a lion passed in front of the re'em. As the re'em bowed down to the king of beasts, David climbed off, but was threatened by the lion. He prayed again and an animal passed by so the lion could chase it and leave David unharmed.[5]
-----------------
The Biblical "reem" was the origin of Christian unicorn mythology

"[T]here are a number of references to unicorns in the Bible – God's strength is compared to the strength of the unicorn, and there are a lot of references to the unicorns horn being a source of misery and release. The problem is, those references aren't actually to unicorns at all. The people who wrote the Bible were not thinking of that Indian animal the Greeks were on about.

As Lavers explains, the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament mentions an animal called a "reem." When scholars tried to translate this word into Greek, they were flummoxed. They had no idea what this "reem" was. They knew it was big, and it had horns, and that it obviously wasn't a goat. (Goats are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.) So they translated it as "monoceros," meaning "one-horn." Then, when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin, the word became "unicornus." And that word, translated into English, is unicorn.

Early in the 20th century, when scholars cracked the code on ancient cuneiform script, they finally learned what that mysterious reem really was. In these ancient texts, written around the time when the Hebrew Bible was being penned, there are many references to an animal called a rimu. Like the biblical reem, the rimu was enormous, strong, and had horns. That animal was an ox. So all of those references to unicorns in the Bible? Those are actually to an ox. Which, if you read the actual sections of the Bible, makes a lot more sense.

But for nearly 1500 years, Christians believed in the unicorn version of things. The unicorn came to symbolize Christ, its horn the cross, and its tribulations during the hunt were like Christ's tribulations on earth. Interestingly, the idea that unicorns were attracted to virgins comes from a pagan source. A Latin book called the Physiologus, probably written in the second century CE, mentions that a unicorn can only be caught when it lays its head down in a virgin's lap. Christian analysts seized on this idea, suggesting that this was symbolic of how Christ came into the world – with the help of a virgin."

tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com...

--------------------
Unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a kid with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China. The earliest description in Greek literature of a single-horned (Greek monokerōs, Latin unicornis) animal was by the historian Ctesias (c. 400 bce), who related that the Indian wild ass was the size of a horse, with a white body, purple head, and blue eyes, and on its forehead was a cubit-long horn coloured red at the pointed tip, black in the middle, and white at the base. Those who drank from its horn were thought to be protected from stomach trouble, epilepsy, and poison. It was very fleet of foot and difficult to capture. The actual animal behind Ctesias’s description was probably the Indian rhinoceros.

www.britannica.com...

------------
Out of 15 bibles I have checked I find the word reem/s used [in numbers 23:22] only in the YLT translation. In the dead sea scroll [4Q27] it also is not used. Now in that respect why would you choose only the KJV bible to criticize? Could it be that you are critical of only the KJV bible? Even the JPS bible does not use the word reem/s. I am led to believe that you are one of the many who do not understand how to study and understand. Get yourself a good concordance to use if you are ignorant of a word.

a reply to: DpatC

Lets see where this discussion goes

I can understand what you are introducing and even though that nomenclature may not be understood by many of us, the message is clear. Some of us are aware that DNA was not known then as it is today but then it was given in a different understanding when Jesus was conceived by His Father from the celestial substance to the terrestrial substance. The ancients may not have had the same dictionary but their understanding is the same as you have introduced here in this thread.

The cell structure of your understanding in relation to the Hebrew structure is well thought out and very true in the sense you have shown here. I believe the Apostles of Jesus would agree after being taught the science of God. I believe they were more simple minded in understanding that the immaculate conception told them the very same. Good thread--