So, explain THIS, bilbical scholars (prove to me, it's not all hogwash)

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Well I agree with you that to start the book off with two different accounts of creation, both of which are proven wrong by the scientific knowledge we have now, makes the rest that follows even harder to swallow.

As E.T. has proven, it doesn't have to make any sense at all for people to believe something and cling to it dearly for whatever reasons and motivations.

As for myself, I am not convinced that it's not hogwash. Besides the basic truths of peaceful living that the Bible shares with nearly EVERY other belief and religion., that is.

Originally posted by airspoon

Yes, I knew that, though there is a very good counter-argument against it, so it's hardly proof. However, proof or no proof, it still doesn't matter, seeing how the torah/bible puts man on the Earth in a matter of days.

This true, ONLY if you accept the Translation as infallible.

We can take those same records refered to as the Books of Moses, and the first verse can also express,....

"In the Begining, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the Earth Became a Waste and a Desolation."

Now, nothing expressed here is out of context with the Original Text. It is just something the Translators considered to be contrary to the Dogma, Theology, and Doctrine of the Church.

It is errors like this, that make the balance of the topic being discussed skewed.

If dinasours existed long before man, then we obviously have a problem.

It would have been the time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, when the earth became that waste and a desolation that the age of the dinosaur occured. In many areas, we are reminded of the Earth Ages, Biblically, and even are offered a discription of a creature which seems to be suggestive of a just what you are concerned with. That was during what the Bible calls the First Earth Age.

Most Jews I talk to willingly admit this blunder and usually say something to the effect that men are sometimes wrong and the torah simply got it wrong. Most Christians on the other hand, say something to the effect that either science is wrong or their "days" could have been much longer, which again flies in the face of science.

--airspoon

I can't speak for my brother Judah, but as a Christian, Days mean MANY things. Seems as a Jew, they do as well. On the fourth Day, as an example, the term or word used in the Original text is Yowm

3117 yowm yome from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

While it is clear enough Yowm can apply to a 24 Hour period of Time, it seems clear as well, it can span an Era such as the Yowm (Day) of the Dinosaur, for example.

I would fully expect this period covers some 250 - 300 million years and/or more.

I hope this aids in your concerns in respects to this. It is not a simple matter to pickup ANY bible and expect to understand the subject matter, when in many cases, we affix definative definitions to words as we understand them today. As with the case noted above, a simple word like Day, maybe more of a hinderance to understanding the Genesis Account, than another more suitable term, but that was the intent, Confusion.

It is, afterall, Jolly King (The Mason) James whose name is on the English 1611 Bible, and for whom the translators worked for. And since the Bible was first offered, it has spiraled further down the Drain of Confusion into the pits of Babel with new political correct editions adding to the mess and worsening the situation.

Anyway, have a good day.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Plus when you reverse words then add and subtract letters like you do, you can make things say whatever you like. Hardly proof of anything.

lol btw

oh, sorry, that means:

laughing out loud by the way

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


... sorry but as I read your post .. you seemed to not realize that the light was set first .. meaning that the sun was first .. ?.. your point has no pont .. you are merely confused ... not understanding what you are reading ... you let your own judgement cloud your mind and thought .. you need clarity to see beyond the veil ...
...

@Esoteric Teacher:


How many times are you going to reply to the same couple of my posts?
I get it, saying word games don't prove anything offended you. Responding to the same comments over and over and acting like I am daft doesn't change anything.
Move on.

@ Chamberf=6

what is the difference between word games and linguistic evolution, aka etymology?

Definition of ETYMOLOGY
1: the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language
2: a branch of linguistics concerned with etymologies.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Your quote answered your own question. Your word games do not deal with the cognates, or roots.

And yet again, this doesn't discuss the OP or how the creation story of Genesis does or doesn't agree with scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Your quote answered your own question. Your word games do not deal with the cognates, or roots.

And yet again, this doesn't discuss the OP or how the creation story of Genesis does or doesn't agree with scientific knowledge.

edit on 9/19/2010 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

you don't think the words are coming from the left and going to the right? If I want to look back at where the words are coming from (start studying etymology) then start looking the other way. when i was younger i used to spell out the words the way they sounded, so i consider phonetics.

eden looking at it phonetically and looking back in the direction from which it came i can see nude.

the garden of eden does have something to do with the creation in genesis.

on these issues, we simply disagree.

thanks for response Chamberf,
john paul

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


You are purposely trying to not understand it seems. Studying where a word "came from" does NOT mean reading it backwards. At least I hope you realize that.
You are simply still trying to make connections where ever you want.

If I looked at words the same way you do, I could very easily say your username "obviously" means:

Sir to see, reached.

...because as you have said about other words, if you reverse it and use phonetics...
Cire=sire or sir --- ot = to ---se = see teacher=reachet=reached
Basically your name tells all about who you are then. To see what you want you "reach", or in other words make large leaps between very unconnected things.


So according to your own views on words and language, you reach past facts into illogical thinking in order to get the results you wanted in the first place.

Or if you disagree and don't think this describes what you do, wouldn't you be then be saying your ideas about words are wrong?

Now please recognize too that according to the Bible, yes, they were nude in the garden. But that doesn't address the question put forward in the OP. It is, as I already mentioned, more to do with your word games than the OP.

there was this fruit on this tree.

if my hands were at my side, i could not reach that fruit.

i reached. teacher.

some think i cheat.

cheat [mirror] teach
________________________

I think what i am choosing to share exists. Furthermore it is relevent to the inquiries the OP has made, and addresses the title of the thread.

this illogical "leap" or reach seems to provide consistant results, and googling reversed speech produces millions of results.

Since the bible was written in codes, and this is well documented, I'm thinking it is relevent to the requests the OP has made.

again, there are inumerous examples in many words.

in lip
ni pil
nipple

thanks,
et

i'm suggesting that if we apply the verses of the bible to the verses of the bible, then perhaps it can mean something different.

If there are those who claim to know better as to the intentions of those who wrote the bible, and they are believable, then believe them.

if you think i am purposefully attempting to decieve for some reason, or you think i am lying, then disregard my posts.

pleasentries,
et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

Well googling nearly anything gives you many results, what does that prove?
Once again you seem to ignore that the Old Testament Bible was written in Hebrew for the most part. And again I say that word games in English do NOT reflect what the Bible said in a different language.

Do all your reversing tricks in Hebrew -- the original language -- if you want to prove something about word jumbles in the Bible.

Did I say you were lying? No. I think you believe what you are saying.
But using a translation (not the original words) of the book you are talking about makes the word games you are using inaccurate from the start. Because the basic building blocks (the letters) of your games are not the letters used in the original or in the same order (spelling).

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Once again you seem to ignore that the Old Testament Bible was written in Hebrew for the most part. And again I say that word games in English do NOT reflect what the Bible said in a different language.

So, it is your contention that religious beliefs have no effect on language, just every other aspect of life, ie money, governments, wars, etc...

Do all your reversing tricks in Hebrew -- the original language -- if you want to prove something about word jumbles in the Bible.

That is your fall back postition? Per the terms and conditions you agreed that English is the language of ATS. And My English is better than my Hebrew. Besides, I have already proven with supportive links in this thread that the Hebrew Bible did incorporate codes, to include the Atbash Cipher Which is a Hebrew code.

But, i will accomidate your request, again:

Atbash is a simple substitution cipher for the Hebrew alphabet. It consists in substituting aleph (the first letter) for tav (the last), beth (the second) for shin (one before last), and so on, reversing the alphabet. In the Book of Jeremiah, לב קמי Lev Kamai (51:1) is Atbash for כשדים Kasdim (Chaldeans), and ששך Sheshakh (25:26; 51:41) is Atbash for בבל Bavel (Babylon). It has been associated with the esoteric methodologies of Jewish mysticism's interpretations of Hebrew religious texts as in the Kabbalah.

The Atbash cipher for the modern Hebrew alphabet would be:

Plain: אבגדהוזחטיכלמנסעפצקרשת
Cipher: תשרקצפעסנמלכיטחזוהדגבא

It is a very weak cipher because it only has one possible key, and it is a simple monoalphabetic substitution cipher. However, this may not have been an issue in the cipher's time.
Atbash Cipher

there ya go Chamberf, as you requested, reverse codes existed in the bible, and in Hebrew.

-et

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


Are you trying to misconstrue what I say, or do you really not understand what I am saying?
I at no point said religion does or doesn't affect language. I don't know where you pulled that from.

I at no point said that the Bible didn't have some things encoded by some of the writers. Where did you see me say that?

I at no point said to speak Hebrew on ATS, but I said to do your word jumble on the things you find so meaningful in Hebrew. Like your favorite eden=nude or like dogma.

The atbash cipher has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I don't know how else to say what I am saying to you.
You choose not to understand what I am saying.
You try to refute what I am saying with things that don't even relate.

Forget it. It is not worth it.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
I at no point said that the Bible didn't have some things encoded by some of the writers. Where did you see me say that?

when you said this:

Do all your reversing tricks in Hebrew -- the original language -- if you want to prove something about word jumbles in the Bible.

(bold by me)

The Atbash cipher is exactly that, reversing Hebrew and i provided proof that the words were jumbled in the bible by using reversed Hebrew.

-et

The code was a reversal of the alphabet. The code was NOT a reversal of the WORDS.

I think you must be purposefully "misunderstanding" me. Like when I asked for you to not respond to my message continually, you then sent me a message called "not responding".

I really think you must get off on doing this sort of thing.

Count me out. If I want to completely waste my time I will watch paint dry.

I understand Chamberf, we simply are looking at this issue from different perspectives.

thank you for the dialogue none the less,
et

Originally posted by witness63
When the Bible was written, most people thought that the earth was flat, with heaven up above and Hades down below, and the sun and everything else moving around it. From a "common sense", non-scientific point of view, that's what it looks like, which is one reason Conpernicus and Galileo got ridiculed and suppressed.

Would ET have landed and explained to these ancient people how things really worked? Well, maybe they did with some of them, but this was a time when most people couldn't even read and write. Their knowledge was extremely limited, their lives nasty, brutish and short, and except for the elite, they did not know much, Nor did the technology exist to widely disseminate any knowledge before the invention of the printing press, which it turn sparked more people to learn to read and write because there was a lot more material to read.

Firstly, it doesn't actually -matter- that the earth revolves around the sun... for most people in their daily lives, it is vanity, such knowledge. Knowing how things work is a fun hobby - but to make it a big deal that people don't know the difference is not only vanity, but pure evil.

Do you require that the person who chops the head off the cow or harvests the cornstalk that you eat knows that the earth revolves around the sun? If this is your requirement for people, then vanity is your friend.

Secondly, science itself would have us WITNESS FOR OURSELVES any thing before we believed it. Considering our point of view...

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Originally posted by Vonour
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

... sorry but as I read your post .. you seemed to not realize that the light was set first .. meaning that the sun was first .. ?.. your point has no pont .. you are merely confused ... not understanding what you are reading ... you let your own judgement cloud your mind and thought .. you need clarity to see beyond the veil ...
...

Sorry, but you seem to be confused by chronology, science, and your own reading comprehension.

Light - not the sun - was created first. Bringing another interesting item to, uh... light: that light could exist without the sun - the sun and moon were very clearly created on Day 4, after light.

Congratulations, now you have TWO things to explain.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Really?! No two particles of dust are ever going to stick together? Do me a favor....go run your finger along the top edge of your fridge and tell me what your finger is now covered by? Is it just one particle?