Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by undo

 

See even you are forced to make some changes to the bible, you recognise that the whole zombie thing is silly so you invent a way it might make sense based on your understanding of current science

It’s a pity you or someone like your with a sci-fi flare couldn’t have done the translating of the bible, it might have been more fun and we might have been colonising the stars by now

edit on 22-2-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)

not making changes. just reading it in the original hebrew
it isn't that i am giving it a scifi flare. science isn't unique to our time

reply to post by adjensen


LOL, you are as easily dismissible as kallisti36.

1. It is a FACT that Keith nor Rook have any education beyond high school.

2. It is a FACT that neither have studied Acharya's work.

3. "an influential knitting expert" = ad hom. Thanks for that clear demonstration of your blatant biases and prejudice by omitting the highly respected and credentialed scholars just so you can attack an old woman for being "an influential knitting expert." Shame on you - you're pathetic.

4. Maliciously criticizing an authors work one has never read is known as INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

5. "You've been asked, repeatedly, to show support for your claims that don't circle back to your own website, Zeitgeist fanatics or discredited sources like Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey. Why are you unable to do so? "

Why are you so UTTERLY DISHONEST? The fact is that that fallacious complaint has already been addressed here in this very thread long ago. Same as so many other issues that have been THOROUGHLY addressed long ago. You simply "can't handle the truth." All you're interested in is the anti-Zeitgeist CULT crap.

6. What you're really saying is that you're too LAZY to read those links and you're intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway so, would you please break it down to about a 5th grade level.

7. Your argument that I can't link to Acharya's website is absolutely ASININE. It's an absurd non sequitur fallacy. You're basically claiming that she doesn't have the right to substantiate her own work with credible evidence and scholarly commentary on primary sources at her own website.

8. Nobody has mentioned Kersey Graves here thus far to the best of my knowledge until you just did. Nevertheless, it's addressed here:

www.freethoughtnation.com...

www.truthbeknown.com...

9. Nobody has mentioned Gerald Massey here thus far to the best of my knowledge until you just did. Nevertheless, it's addressed here:

freethoughtnation.com...

Who Is Gerald Massey?
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

You have never read anything by Gerald Massey either have you. It turns out that Gerald Massey was actually heavily peer reviewed by several of the top Egyptologists of his day. You, like so many others here, wouldn't know anything about that either.

10. From the new Zeitgeist part 1 sourcebook:

"...This effort includes much new source material drawn from primary sources as well the works from credentialed authorities in a variety of relevant subjects. Indeed, I have strived to include the best and most thorough, scholarly and modern sources wherever possible, with the result that many authorities cited here possess credentials from respected institutes of higher learning, and their publishers are some of the most scholarly in English (and other languages), such as:

E.J. Brill
Peeters
Kegan Paul
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
MacMillan & Co., etc.

This Sourcebook thus provides relevant primary-source material and citations from respectable and credentialed authorities, along with germane images to support the first part of ZG’s contentions. There are over 150 sources cited in this Sourcebook, in nearly 350 footnotes...."

- Acharya S, Preface for The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook Part 1: The Greatest Story Ever Told
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

* Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the best and most highly respected institutes of higher learning. Hand-waving dismissals will not suffice.

www.freethoughtnation.com...

reply to post by GoldenKnight


What's really notable here is that posters like adjensen, undo, kallisti36, and tinfoil man have actually addressed these issues in their own words and from their own research.

You on the other hand keep posting the same website and videos over & over & over. You have no 'intellectual argument' of your own and it's not only obvious, but even other Zeitgeister proponents aren't really supporting you.

Even when Acharya S--Does Archarya really mean 'Great Teacher?' -- manages to list a legitimate scholar, I've noted that often times it's not that they are agreeing with her, it's her interpretations of their interpretations and that's just more of the bunk & double-speak that are the earmarks of her so-called research.

Can you, GoldenKnight, make an intellectual argument based on your research that doesn't just parrot Acharya S and her website? Can you?!!

hell yea zeitgeist has been totally merked (refuted) checkout my channel for more truth youtube.com/0thetrooth0

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by undo

 

I will have a difficult time accepting this without more.
I suspect you are taking liberties in assuming the sex or non sex of angels.
It is said that the angels were neither male nor female.
Are you implying they were hermaphrodites?
It is when they gave up their first estate and enetered the material realm that they took on sexual attributes as did satan with eve.
The original sin was not procreation, it was procreation with the father of lies.

no, i will show you what i mean.

verses Genesis 1:26-27, speak for the first time about man. These are the verses i was referring to. Take note that every word with a number after it, was in the original hebrew. every word without a number after it, was not in the original hebrew, and was added either in the latin and greek translations of the bible, or by the later english translation (or all three). The original text is a highly condensed version of what is perhaps several thousand years of data, much of which was dedicated to memory and passed along via oral tradition until it was written down.

Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559 , Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754, after our likeness 1823: and let them have dominion 7287 over the fish 1710 of the sea 3220, and over the fowl 5775 of the air 8064, and over the cattle 929, and over all the earth 776, and over every creeping thing 7431 that creepeth 7430 upon the earth 776.

Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.
---

That means verse 1:27 would've said
God created man image, image God created. male female created.

The word God is actually Elohim, which is a plural word (meaning more than one god) And the word "man" is actually the word 'adam.
So it would've said

Elohim created adam image, image Elohim created male female created.

since the word for image there is tselem and can be plural or singular, i'm not sure why they chose to make it singular since the rest of the words are plural. i think it was an effort to force the text to make it sound like a single male deity, creating men and women. But the problem is, the women are also called adam and made in the image of Elohim, not in the image of adam (in verse 1:27). and the words which would've forced the text to indicate a single male deity, such as "he him" or "he them" are not in the original hebrew. those words were added by translators.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
reply to post by adjensen

 

LOL, you are as easily dismissible as kallisti36.

1. It is a FACT that Keith nor Rook have any education beyond high school.

Then kindly provide evidence of it, and explain how it impacts their ability to address the issues at hand.

2. It is a FACT that neither have studied Acharya's work.

Then kindly provide evidence of it, and explain how it impacts their ability to address the issues at hand (since they are cited as refuting Zeitgeist, which they obviously have, indeed, watched.)

3. "an influential knitting expert" = ad hom. Thanks for that clear demonstration of your blatant biases and prejudice by omitting the highly respected and credentialed scholars just so you can attack an old woman for being "an influential knitting expert." Shame on you - you're pathetic.

lol, it appears that you are the one who is attacking an old woman -- I merely pointed out that "influential knitting expert" hardly makes one an historian or makes them a notable endorsee of a historian. I didn't criticize her "skillz of an artist" or whatever it is that makes her an influencer in the fast-paced world of knitting.

4. Maliciously criticizing an authors work one has never read is known as INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

I have read Murdock's Zeitgeist companion guide and sourcebook, as well as some of her postings on her forum, and that's the extent of my criticism. I wouldn't spend ten cents buying one of her books in the remainder bin, but I'm not discussing those, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with this.

5. "You've been asked, repeatedly, to show support for your claims that don't circle back to your own website, Zeitgeist fanatics or discredited sources like Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey. Why are you unable to do so? "

Why are you so UTTERLY DISHONEST? The fact is that that fallacious complaint has already been addressed here in this very thread long ago. Same as so many other issues that have been THOROUGHLY addressed long ago. You simply "can't handle the truth." All you're interested in is the anti-Zeitgeist CULT crap.

No it hasn't, you've simply posted links back to Murdock's web site, not to credible sources that aren't circular. You believe that posting endorsements by seemingly random people are credible sources. They are not.

And when did I say anything about the Zeitgeist crowd being a cult?

6. What you're really saying is that you're too LAZY to read those links and you're intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway so, would you please break it down to about a 5th grade level.

No, what I'm saying is that I have gone and read some of those links, and they are nonsense. I asked you to clarify the logic by which Murdock claimed that Krishna was born of a virgin, because he is not who the Hindus believe he is, but somehow he is someone else entirely.

7. Your argument that I can't link to Acharya's website is absolutely ASININE. It's an absurd non sequitur fallacy. You're basically claiming that she doesn't have the right to substantiate her own work with credible evidence and scholarly commentary on primary sources at her own website.

Unless you are Murdock, I am not interested in reading any of that because a) it is circular, and b) Murdock cannot debate me, and you're incapable of anything other than pointing back to her. So it is utterly pointless.

8. Nobody has mentioned Kersey Graves here thus far to the best of my knowledge until you just did. Nevertheless, it's addressed here:

There is nothing there but Murdock's endorsement of him. Who cares? And if he's such a stellar source, why was he a significant source for "Christ Conspiracy" and only gets one mention in Zeitgeist?

You have never read anything by Gerald Massey either have you. It turns out that Gerald Massey was actually heavily peer reviewed by several of the top Egyptologists of his day. You, like so many others here, wouldn't know anything about that either.

Of course I've read his writings. I do not find them credible, he does not cite sources, makes a number of errors that we'll call unintentional, but which conveniently make his case, and I question the quality of a "peer review" that would allow things like that to slide.

10. From the new Zeitgeist part 1 sourcebook:

.. snip ..

* Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the best and most highly respected institutes of higher learning. Hand-waving dismissals will not suffice.

As I pointed out to you earlier, the "highly respected institutes of higher learning" seem to consistently be providing the mundane details, and then something attributed to Murdock is brought in to make the crazy connections. That's hardly an endorsement, but nice try.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


*rubs eyes*Oh? You're still here? *goes back to sleep*

'adam means ruddy, red, dust, and red dust. which has historically been thought of as clay, pink skin, black skin, etc. for my really way out there theory, i theorize that the first 'adam was from mars.

p.s. thought crossed my mind that perhaps the Son of Mars idea, might also be a metaphor for moon of mars. since mars currently only has 2 notable satellites: Phobos and Deimos, i'm not sure what they would've been trying to suggest, but it does kinda match the dot in the middle of a much bigger circle, like seeing a moon transit in front of its parent planet. i can see where that might be an unpopular theory of the original hieroglyphic translators (the bulk of which was done 200 years ago), since it would suggest things we weren't comfortable with ourselves yet (i.e. astronomy)

yep another wacky undo theory.

reply to post by The GUT

What's really notable here is that posters like adjensen, undo, kallisti36, and tinfoil man have actually addressed these issues in their own words and from their own research.

Lol. What this really means is that there are some who give their amateurish, uninformed opinions without providing any real evidence for them - which you praise - and there are those like Goldenknight, who have provided evidence heavy and quote laden posts (derived from many reputable sources) and for this you attack him as if backing up arguments with evidence and quoting or referencing a multitude of scholars indicates a weak argument. Lol. No, its the difference between presenting credible, authoritative evidence and facts, and simply presenting an emotionally based, biased, 'declaration of faith', which is all the Christian apologists you praised for their 'own words' have come up with.

Undo is the exception, who has clearly done a lot of research and makes it to your high praise list. I like Undo, but let not forget, he makes statements such as:

'adam means ruddy, red, dust, and red dust. which has historically been thought of as clay, pink skin, black skin, etc. for my really way out there theory, i theorize that the first 'adam was from mars.

OK.

All in all, a shameful performance by the Christianity defenders Imo.

In a way, I'm pleased this thread was created, as its an excellent showcase of Christian unreasonableness and intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, and Kallisti36, you only dreamed you were awake. You've been asleep for a long time, it appears, and dont show any signs of waking up soon.

reply to post by Malcram


do you really think i'm shameful and not presenting evidence? i've yet to pull out all the stops.
are you goading me?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Malcram

 

do you really think i'm shameful and not presenting evidence? i've yet to pull out all the stops.
are you goading me?

Lol. No, you were the exception. In fact I was editing my post before you posted your reply to indicate that. I do like you Undo and I enjoy reading your thoughts and you have clearly put a great deal of time and research into them. But it has to be admitted that a lot of your conclusions and notions are highly speculative, to a degree that Zeitgeist could never hope to match. Therefore I find the Christian cheerleading of you pretty hypocritical, seeing as that was their (unfounded) accusation against Zeitgeist.

It seems they dont really care, as long as you dont support Zeitgeist, you're OK with them in this thread, no matter how heretical and wrong they would say your opinions and ideas were in ANY other context.

reply to post by Malcram


"son of man." a phrase frequently used in the bible. what does it mean? who is man? answer: 'adam.

www.blueletterbible.org...

and what does the word 'adam stem from?

www.blueletterbible.org...

now if you're supporting the theory that astro-theology is based on planets,
what do you suggest Son of Man means? Everything else is a planet, in astro-theology. Why not Son of Man?

i'm waiting.....patiently.

reply to post by undo


so why do you not accept the supporting text that woman came from man?
It still leaves these verses intact and the singular text works then.

And for me, the new teatament Holy Spirit inspired texts (remember, they did not know they were making scripture in the epistles. In reference to Eve being wholly seduced (as in a sexual manner) in reference to the original act of sin where the problem and the need for redemption began.


Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye ‘touch’ it, lest ye die. Again, going to the Strong’s and looking up the word “touch” we find the number 5060, which is the Hebrew word “naga,” which means “to lie with a woman.”

Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." When looked up in the Strong’s Main Concordance, the word “buguiled” references number 5377. If you then look up 5377 in the Hebrew Dictionary in the back of the Strong’s Concordance, you find the primitive root word “nasha” which means “to lead astray, to seduce.”

Paul speaks about the same subject in II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtitle, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. The number in the Greek for this reference to “buguiled” in the Strong’s is 1818 “exapatao,” which means to “seduce wholly.”

Originally posted by Malcram
and there are those like Goldenknight, who have provided evidence heavy and quote laden posts (derived from many reputable sources) and for this you attack him as if backing up arguments with evidence and quoting or referencing a multitude of scholars indicates a weak argument.

You're obviously not going to those links, because they are nothing but circular links and claims that are completely farcical. "Referencing a multitude of scholars"? Give me a break. GoldenKnight cites nothing other than Murdock, sources that Murdock cites, or sources that cite Murdock.

Here's how "GoldenKnight" works. Someone says something like "The claims of Kersey Graves are ridiculous", to which GoldenKnight posts a link to Murdock's web site. On said web site is documentation that Kersey Graves is not ridiculous. Said documentation is the evidence of Murdock, not Graves. And why should we take the word of Murdock? Because her findings support him. And what is the basis for her findings? Well, Graves, of course.

It's called "circular" because that's what it is -- Graves is reputable because Murdock supports him, and Murdock is reputable because she is a Graves scholar. I'm not sure how that seems reasonable to you.

The fact that pretty much everyone else view Graves as a dimwit who fabricated his claims, sadly, does not reflect back on Murdock quite so obviously.

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by undo

 

so why do you not accept the supporting text that woman came from man?
It still leaves these verses intact and the singular text works then.

And for me, the new teatament Holy Spirit inspired texts (remember, they did not know they were making scripture in the epistles. In reference to Eve being wholly seduced (as in a sexual manner) in reference to the original act of sin where the problem and the need for redemption began.


Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye ‘touch’ it, lest ye die. Again, going to the Strong’s and looking up the word “touch” we find the number 5060, which is the Hebrew word “naga,” which means “to lie with a woman.”

Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." When looked up in the Strong’s Main Concordance, the word “buguiled” references number 5377. If you then look up 5377 in the Hebrew Dictionary in the back of the Strong’s Concordance, you find the primitive root word “nasha” which means “to lead astray, to seduce.”

Paul speaks about the same subject in II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtitle, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. The number in the Greek for this reference to “buguiled” in the Strong’s is 1818 “exapatao,” which means to “seduce wholly.”

i think the second creation of man text is where the original adam (plural) were modified to be procreative by what we've assumed was the bad guy. this is called having knowledge of (having sex). adam knew his wife and she conceived. that's my theory. that originally, we were clones with no ability to procreate. then we were modified by enki to procreate, which angered enlil, who wasn't terribly fond of the clones in the first place. the council had a pow wow and decided to also modify the dna so that we didn't procreate and live forever, over running the entire universe after a few thousand years. and together, those two things represent the fall narrative.

reply to post by adjensen


adjensen, kallisti and etc,

i apologize for my part in this, as my "Wacky theories" appear to be upsetting the people with wacky theories, about which they claim, are more wacky theories.

personally i much prefer and see evidence for, more than one layer of data in the biblical texts, and that the insistence of only interpreting one layer, is what causes so many problems.

Originally posted by undo
i apologize for my part in this, as my "Wacky theories" appear to be upsetting the people with wacky theories, about which they claim, are more wacky theories.

There is a massive, almost immeasurable, difference between someone making "whacky theories" that they agree are conjecture, and someone who disputes established historical fact with whacky theories that they represent as being the truth, even in the face of scant or nonexistent evidence.

Theorize away!

On a related, but off topic note, I have posted my thread on Zeitgeist here:

Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

reply to post by undo


Dont worry Undo, your theories will never be as whacky as regular Christianity anyway, and at least they are your own and are well researched, unlike the unthinking hand-me-down Christianity of most Christians.

And my point was not to undermine the validity of your ideas - you make a lot of interesting and valid points - it was to highlight the hypocrisy of the the defenders of Christianity whose beliefs necessarily mean that they reject almost everything you say, yet they keep silent on this and even praise you,, as long as you are joining them in opposing Zeitgeist.

Yet I dont recall 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' being one of Jesus teachings.

I guess Christians learned a little something from the military tactics of the Roman sunworshippers who formulated their religion and edited their holy book.

reply to post by Malcram


(to correct the record, i'm female, an old lady with kids and a fantastic hubby.)

this heavy duty research all started when i began to study the meaning of the bottomless pit in revelation 9 and how it can be traced all the way back to ancient sumer.
let me tell ya, that's one heckuva rabbit hole.

anyway, i see your position and i see the position of the other christians in the thread, and i honestly believe we are all talking about the same data (to a fairly good degree) but it's a layered affair. there's a layer of astronomy data and then the more spiritual aspects (the "reigious" part) and then the political/social parts. you can find this most glaringly in bible prophecy, both old and new testaments. the astronomy acts as a metaphorical clock, and ties histories together as well, but it isn't the only information. it's a clock.

i understand why acharya believes what she does, but i think she stopped short of asking the question of how the astronomy was meant to function within the framework of the rest of the data. same for zeitgeist. they need to keep going with their investigation and see not just what they want to see, but what else it might be saying.

Where do you think they got "Son" of God from?

Anyone ever stop to think that Christians might actually be worshipping the "Sun" not the "Son", just like many other major religions in history?

Makes sense to me.