Beyond Religion Is God of the Creation

I watched the movie "Contact" last night that states that the Universe was created by some powerful and presumably very wise beings eons ago. In it was cited Occam’s Razor—“The simplest answer to a problem is usually the best one.”

Occam's razor is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
The principle is often summarized as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." In practice, the application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.
Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities." (Wikipedia)

Epiphany:
Salvation’s path in its simplest form = man, Jesus, God
Man’s spiritual attributes in its simplest form = body, soul, spirit
God’s introduction in its simplest form = Evening, Morning, Day
Salvation’s path in its simplest form again = Evening for man’s body leads to darkness, unless man finds morning, who leads to Day (That Day).

Occam's razor is the law of succinctness; a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses (Biblical Creation, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

"Occam's razor is the law of succinctness; a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses (Biblical Creation, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."

So, materialism it is then.

2. So, materialism it is then.

Actually, materialism makes a lot of assumptions, principal among which is that one material entity (the human organism) is adequately equipped to understand other material entities (the rest of the universe.) This assumption, aside from being complex, is demonstrably wrong.

3: It makes the fewest assumptions. Which is all one needs to do to satisfy Occam's Razor.

"This assumption, aside from being complex, is demonstrably wrong."

I take it you've been reading Plantinga's drivel?

>4 StormRaven: Is Occam's Razor an immutable law? Or just a handy tool for making guesses?

5: It's a handy tool. But it is the tool that jwfarq pulled out. Of course, jwfarq thinks it is a law, to quote him: "Occam's razor is the law of succinctness".

7: Could you make a stupider comment? Because my quota of stupid things to read is short today.

Why would you discount something's effectiveness simply because you disagree with the person who proposed/discovered it... I hear Thomas Edison was a right bastard, but I'm all for electric light.

Ref 6: No! It is not my quote. It is a quoted definition from Wikipedia. That’s why it is in italics. (Thanks again StormRaven for teaching me how to make quotes in this message board.)

jwfarq
I am still not understanding the numerology question.

But for discussion about the items of three in your epiphany, the simplest salvation path would be just man; the simplest human attributes would be just body; day and night is pretty simple on its own, it is rotation?

I do not understand the last one were man's body is equated to darkness unless he finds morning - that just seems to be a symbolic complication.

ref 3

Sorry, but I beg to disagree. Materialism per se does not assume that we definitely can and will achieve a complete and "ultimate" understanding of the universe; it simply sees how far we can get if we try.

The chief assumptions that materialism does make is that matter itself can be the source of its own explanation, and that nature is its own end.

So far, there has been no reason to abandon that assumption. It has lead, so far at least, to no contradictions and has lead to amazing discoveries and a level understanding as yet unmatched by any other method or assumption.

Its usefulness is being demonstrated with increasing force and clarity every day.

There really are no serious contenders; that is, none with any actual results to show.

Ref 12: It may be, for example, that the simplest way of exploring theology is to watch science fiction movies, but I doubt that it is the best one.

It may be, for example, that the simplest way of exploring theology is to apply Occam's Razor to scripture with an understanding of the Creation. I think that might be the best one.

15: "It may be, for example, that the simplest way of exploring theology is to apply Occam's Razor to scripture with an understanding of the Creation. "

Simplifying. That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ref 13: : I am still not understanding the numerology question.

Numerology introduced in this thread is 1-2-3 as a spiritual progression as follows:
man, Jesus, God = (1) man must find (2) Jesus who leads to Light and (3) the eternal Day

I do not understand the last one were man's body is equated to darkness unless he finds morning - that just seems to be a symbolic complication.

Man is not equated to darkness. Man is equated to (1) EVEning who leads to darkness unless man finds (2) Morning (the Bright Morning Star) who leads to the holy spirit of Light and (3) Day.

Ref 16: Simplifying. That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Simplify: a : to reduce to basic essentials, b : to diminish in scope or complexity, c : to make more intelligible

I am apparently not articulating up to par with respect to item c: to make more intelligible.

"(2) Morning (the Bright Morning Star) who leads to the holy spirit of Light "

You do realize that "Bright Morning Star" is the etymology of Lucifer, don't you?

18: No. You are failing at (a).

#14

It is remarkable how religious sounding the materialist can be. First a statement of faith -- "The chief assumptions that materialism does make" -- then the mystical sounding creed "(it) can be the source of its own explanation" and "(it) is its own end." Then the Revelation, "Its usefulness is being demonstrated with increasing force and clarity every day." The Kingdom is Nigh! Keep the faith, Brother, keep the faith!.

>15 jwfarq:: "It may be, for example, that the simplest way of exploring theology is to apply Occam's Razor to scripture with an understanding of the Creation. I think that might be the best one."

I caution you, jw, against such a simplistic method of reading Scripture. The Bible is intentionally complex; the Word of God is inherently polyvalent, encoding and revealing meaning on an extraordinarily complex number of levels and layers. It is not to be uniformly read as completely literal--nor, for that matter, completely mythical in only one dimension; rather, it is dynamic and polydimensional.

Ockham's Razor is a logical tool for use in a precisely defined area of logical propositions. It is not a universal principal; and if you talk to many scientists, you will discover that it is rarely a useful tool in the physical sciences (especially biology), because material reality isn't logically simple but bewilderingly complex.

I might consider taking, as a simplification, the contradictions in the Bible to be contradictions. And from contradictions we can prove anything. I suppose from the contradictions in it we could prove that the Bible is false. I am not a man of the Book, but I have found great wisdom in the Bible; how can I do that without complicating my approach to the contradictions?

Robert

Ref 19: You do realize that "Bright Morning Star" is the etymology of Lucifer, don't you?

Never heard that before. Ever! What is written in Rev 22:16 clearly states this:
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
Morning star is written in 2Peter 1:19. and Rev 2:28 and Rev 22:16—3 times for the body, soul, spirit of man—a 1,2,3 perfect progression patterned from the Creation.

4. I take it you've been reading Plantinga's drivel?

Nope, never read it. I prefer making my own drivel.

Lucifer comes from Latin for light bearer, and refers to the morning sun.

My question though goes back to numerology, which I still am not putting together all the seemingly random numbers into a guiding principle.

The essential pattern is 123? So everywhere there is a 123 pattern it has superimposed the symbology of salvation?

What does the pattern do? What is the power in the pattern that communicates the message of salvation, makes that message more impacting or more effective? Beyond or perhaps different from the words of the message?

Is there a guiding principle, a key, to the numerology?

The formula, 1. man must find 2. Jesus who leads to 3. Day, seems arbitrary and contrived as it relates to a purposeful numerological (1-2-3) overlay on or within the text. It frankly seems excessively cryptic, even excessively complicated.

Ref 26: Lucifer comes from Latin for light bearer, and refers to the morning sun.

Thank you Richard. The morning sun is different from the morning Son. Only on the 4th day of Creation are lights placed in the sky (moon and sun). Therefore we must conclude that evening, morning and day, are, at least the first three days, spiritual entities and not material entities.

My question though goes back to numerology, which I still am not putting together all the seemingly random numbers into a guiding principle.

First, the word numerology connotes man-made. The fact is the numbers are part of scripture that includes both God-breathed numbers and God-breathed literal Word.
Second, the numbers in the Bible are not random, nor are the developed numbers that are derived from lists random, such as the six days of the Creation that develop 666 when evening, morning, and day are counted on the 6th day. This is not a random number.

The essential pattern is 123? So everywhere there is a 123 pattern it has superimposed the symbology of salvation?

Yes and absolutely YES! God introduced Himself as a pathway to Himself so that man could find salvation IN and WITH the image of God—EVEning, Morning, and Day.
How could it be that simple?? It is.

What does the pattern do?

When you understand WHO the pattern is, and WHY it is there, and HOW it transforms you with rebirth, and WHEN you believe it, and WHAT it does, and WHERE you must act on it, you will know WHICH path to take.

What is the power in the pattern that communicates the message of salvation, makes that message more impacting or more effective?

The power is from the Holy Spirit of Light, when you understand the 4-way God of Creation (EVEning, Morning, Light, and Day) is God of the 4-way cross that Jesus died on to show this. Jesus said “Thine is the (1) Kingdom, (2) Power, (3) Glory, (4) forever”.

Beyond or perhaps different from the words of the message?

The numbers are the backbone of scripture, that which structure the message of God, that which God’s Words wrap around like flexible flesh around hard bone.

Is there a guiding principle, a key, to the numerology?

I hate the word numerology. Anyway, all numbers in the Bible flow from the Creation, where the Creation is the foundational source. When you understand the Creation you will have the key to the rest of the Bible—the Holy Grail of Truth that has eluded humans for millenniums.

The formula, 1. man must find 2. Jesus who leads to 3. Day, seems arbitrary and contrived

Most Christians would agree that the pathway of salvation is man-Jesus-God. How can you argue with that?

jwfarq
I am curious about how you understand the creation.

The universe came into existence 10 billion years before the earth started rotating to cause day and night. Do you agree with this insight from physics, astronomy and cosmology?

Let me start with that question about the framework of God breathed numbers that you have found. ( I will stop referring to numerology as that is apparently suggestive of a human idea, though I am not certain what to call this approach to scripture based on the numbers that support the flesh of the written words.)

Ref 28: I am curious about how you understand the creation.

I believe that certain repetitive numbers in the Bible are there for a reason, and that reason itself was introduced with the Bible’s first six counted sentences, and then reintroduced with the six days of the Creation, and then applied to the entire Bible to structure all scripture. I also believe that everything happens for a reason.

It happened in the middle of the night after many months of searching the entire Bible for the answer to Revelation’s calculation of the beast. My research led me to an impasse in the Genesis I Creation. I had counted 6 evenings and 6 mornings on the sixth day, but where was the third six? Several months went by. Then in the middle of the night a voice in my dream called out my name and told me to count the day as the third six in the Creation’s phrases of evening, morning, and day. I woke up startled and stunned. I cannot describe the combination of goose bumps and euphoria as the realization of the first calculation for the 666 beast sunk in. That event changed my life.

During the ensuing months I struggled to maintain my objectivity. I am an engineer who learned to think in a logical, dispassionate way, where everything must be proven. So I set out to prove to myself this calculation was nothing more than a coincidence. What I found brought me to my knees. Was this the God of Time who introduced His face on the face of the Bible in terms of time—evening, morning, and day? I began to realize that my dream in the night was like Daniel's secret vision of 2300 evenings and mornings.

This was the beginning of my understanding. (I just copied and pasted the first 3 paragraphs of my last book)

The universe came into existence 10 billion years before the earth started rotating to cause day and night. Do you agree with this insight from physics, astronomy and cosmology?

Yes, of course. The Bible is a spiritual manual for the spirit of man. It is not a scientific text book. However I will say the numbers in the Bible structure the foundation of the natural world and the natural numbers of man..

OK the premise is that there are certain repetitive number in the bible that structure the foundation of the natural world.

Are you saying that 1,2, and 3 are numbers that structure the foundation of the natural world?

Or is it the number 6 that structures the natural world?

Finding the truth of creation and salvation in a special revelation about an obscure and textually disputed number from a single verse in Revelations does seem to be a bit contrived, at least to me.

I still fail to see a connection between the 666 of Rev 13.18 and the 6 evenings and 6 mornings and 6 days of Genesis 1. "And there was evening and there was morning, Day 1." Especially given that the 6 evenings and 6 mornings make up the 6 days. There are not another 6 days. There are just 6 days - one 6. Plus the Sabbath, for 7 days.

Ultimately though the story of the 6 days of creation does not accurately reveal a number that is foundational for the natural world.

In what way is the number 6, or 666, foundational to the natural world?

How is it that there are never any negative numbers or imaginary numbers in the scriptures?

God created the integers. The rest is the work of man.

There are some foundational numbers -
2.71828183
3.14159265
6.626068 × 10^-34
6.67300 × 10^-11

That nasty little "i" is real, as is the square root of 2.

ref 32

It turns out that the integers can be derived from properties of the empty set.

So we can modify the theorem ("God created the integers, etc) with:

God created the empty set, and man made all the rest.

Can there be a different ratio of the circumference to the diameter?

That ratio is hard wired I think.

As is (1+1/n)^n.

BTW, did they ever finally decide that those pesky neutrinos came up short in the race against the photons?

That nasty little "i" is real,

Incorrect, actually.

And I think the neutrino thing came down to a bad wire.

Pretend real?

No, imaginary.

I just have to keep repeating: the logarithm is the exponent. the logarithm is the exponent. the logarithm is the exponent.

Eventually I will remember that.

#22: Ockham's Razor is a logical tool for use in a precisely defined area of logical propositions.

Occam's Razor is a principal that can be applied just about anywhere.

it is rarely a useful tool in the physical sciences (especially biology), because material reality isn't logically simple but bewilderingly complex.

In what sense? The real world can be complex, but that doesn't invalid the principle of making our explanations as simple as possible. Certainly physics has advanced by assuming that one and the same physical laws apply to what goes on Earth runs by the same laws as what goes in the heavens. Like any other rule of thumb, there are applications from the pointlessly obvious to the trivial to the absurdly wrong. Scientists will generally throw out any theory that depends on undetected things; no giant camouflaged birds altering global weather patterns or eating the polar bear population. When they do accept undetected things, like dark matter, it's because simpler theories just don't fit reality, because other things are no longer equal. (That's one of the axises that Occam's Razor varies on; if we demand that everything else be exactly equal, it's hard to quibble with it, but it's nigh useless. If we relax that requirement too far, the demand for simplicity crushes everything else.)

> 27. EVEning, Morning, and Day

You correctly relate Eve (the first woman) to the EVEning. Very perceptive.

But you do not clarify the identity of the first man, Adam, with morning. It's there for all to see, though. a.m. = ante meridian = morning.

Take a and m, and in between insert "da", which means "yes" in Russian. It is also a contraction for "dad", and is often used in the UK -- such as the following dialog:

"'Q: 'Eh mate, where's yer da'?. A: Oh, 'e's out back sleepin' it off."

So, a.m. encompassing "yes, Father" = aDAm.

So, the primal coupling of aDAm and EVE results in a day -- as in "the evening and the morning were the first day." Notice the EVEning comes first, which is as it should be.

Easy as 1-2-3.

"When they do accept undetected things, like dark matter, it's because simpler theories just don't fit reality, because other things are no longer equal."

My inner pedant requires me to point out that dark matter is not an undetected thing. The reason scientists have posited dark matter is because we can detect the gravitational effects of its mass.

It still looks quite contrived to me, looking for patterns and then putting numbers on them. It reminds me a little of Erich von Daniken: make up a theory, then if you look back through thousands of years of history you will be able to pick a few things which fit the theory, whilst ignoring all the things that don't.

I missed the reason for capitalizing the letters in EVEning, in comment >17 jwfarq:. Is that really in order to point to Eve, the woman?

That suggestion does not work in Hebrew.

Note: 48 was deleted by mistake as I was trying to edit the comment. It posted as comment 49.

Those interested in a skeptic's view of numerology should seek out the books of Martin Gardner. In his appropriately named book Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?' he debunks the numerology of Dr. Rashad Khalifa who spent a lifetime searching for and finding the number 19 in the Koran.

My view on numerology? Seek and you will find ... anywhere.

Ref 30:
OK the premise is that there are certain repetitive number in the bible that structure the foundation of the natural world.
Yes

Are you saying that 1,2, and 3 are numbers that structure the foundation of the natural world?
No.

Or is it the number 6 that structures the natural world?
Yes. The number 666 does. The most common occurrence of carbon has atomic structure of 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons. All life on earth is carbon based. EVEning, the mother of all living (natural life), is the carbon-mother

Finding the truth of creation and salvation in a special revelation about an obscure and textually disputed number from a single verse in Revelations does seem to be a bit contrived, at least to me.
Man must lose the number 666 and find 777.

I still fail to see a connection between the 666 of Rev 13.18 and the 6 evenings and 6 mornings and 6 days of Genesis 1. "And there was evening and there was morning, Day 1." Especially given that the 6 evenings and 6 mornings make up the 6 days. There are not another 6 days. There are just 6 days - one 6. Plus the Sabbath, for 7 days.
The 6th evening and the 6th morning together is a wait time before the 6th day, just as the 7th evening and 7th morning is a wait time before the 7th day.

Ultimately though the story of the 6 days of creation does not accurately reveal a number that is foundational for the natural world.
In what way is the number 6, or 666, foundational to the natural world?
I will show you that it is.

Now we are getting somewhere. The essential idea behind the God breathed numbers, the meaning of them.

We must lose the number 666 and find 777. This is the insight that grounds all of the writings in the bible and gives a guiding principle to the reading of scripture. The interpretive key that makes sense of the apparently random and contrived number relations that can be found in the text by those who seeks such number relations.

And the relation between the 6 evenings and 6 mornings and 6 days becomes a chemistry equation.

This is the key I have been asking about since the first comment that had confused me.

So, carbon is the mark of the beast?

And EVE is the beginning beast?

I thought Eve was pulled out of Adam's side. I need to go back to the story to check.

I am sure though that Eve, the woman's name, is not related to evening, the start of a day. There is no etymological relationship, and certainly not one in Hebrew.

Your library shares with my library the Hebrew bible. Compare the Hebrew words for Eve and for evening.

(I would post them here, but my computer crashed and I have not taken time to load in my new computer Greek and Hebrew fonts yet.)

ETA
But wait. I think I have misread. EVEning is the mother of all natural life. That means the start of the first day, not the woman Eve. Did I misunderstand that? It is not Eve the woman, it is EVEning the beginning of the day that is the mother of all natural life - EVEning is the first carbon atom.

Ref 30, 42, 47, 50
Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities(like numbers) for inferences to unknown entities." (words)(Wikipedia)
FACT
It is a fact the primary element in the chemistry of life on earth is carbon 12, and its most common occurrence has the atomic image of 6 neutrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons, or (–6, 6, +6), or 666.
It is a fact the element nitrogen comprises 77.7% of the earth’s atmosphere and has the atomic image of (–7, 7, +7) or 777.
It is a fact these scientific numbers occur in the Bible as follows:
· The count for evening, morning, and day in the Creation on the sixth day is 666. (2-1)
· The count for evening, morning, and day in the Creation on the seventh day is 777. (2-2)
· The count on the seventh day in Genesis 2:2-4 is written seventh day, seventh day, and seventh day, or 777. (2-2)
· It is written in the Bible that Lamech, the father of Noah, lived to be 777 years old and said, If Cain will be avenged 7 times; truly Lamech 77 times. (2-3)
· In the Great Flood of Noah there were three 7 day flights of the dove that is 777. (2-4)
· Israel (Jacob) had to wait for his wife Rebecca 7 years, 7 days, and 7 years that can be expressed as 777. (2-5)
· Each of the three annual Jewish pilgrimages are 7 days long. This number then is 777. (2-6)
· Seven trumpets, seven bowls, and seven seals in Revelation reveal the number 777. (2-7)
· The running counts for evening, morning, and day in the Creation added (1+2+3+4+5+6) is 21, or 7+7+7 for each of the three, or 777, 777, 777. (2-8)
· Evening and morning in the Creation is a fixed period of time before day counted 77 on the 7th day, or simply 777 (2-2) for evening, morning, and day together.
· There are three annual Jewish pilgrimages with fixed periods of time of 77 followed by a 7 day sacred occasion that can be expressed as (77+7, 77+7, 77+7), or simply 777, 777, 777. (2-9)
· Joseph prophesied 77, 77, 77 with 7 fat and 7 lean cattle, 7 fat and 7 lean heads of grain, and 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine. (2-10)
· The numbers of Job prophecy 77, 77, 77 with 7 son’s birthdays, and 7 annual offerings, 7 days and 7 nights that Job’s counselors waited, and 140, or 70 + 70 years as the age of Job. (2-11)
· In Leviticus the Day of Atonement requires seven blood sprinklings from a bull and a goat on the mercy seat, meeting tent, and alter. Together this number is 77, 77, 77. (2-12)
· Jesus’ generations in Mathew’s genealogy is separated into three sections of 14, 14, and 14, that can be expressed as 7+7, 7+7, 7+7, or simply as 77, 77, 77. (2-13)
· King Solomon received 666 talents of gold annually. (2-14)
· The calculation for King Solomon totals 6 steps to his throne, 60 queens, and 600 shekels for his soldiers to be 666. (2-15)
· The number of the beast in Revelation is 666. (2-16)
· The count for evening, morning, and day on the sixth day of the Creation when man was created is 666. (2-17)
These examples only scratch the surface of God's hidden message to humans.

I am working to process all this.

Let me make the connections as I can. You have overwhelmed me with evidence. I must take them one at a time.

Your first point.

The meaning of creation and the message of salvation that is taught in scripture is that we are to lose carbon, the mark of the beast and the 6 evenings, mornings, days, and to find nitrogen, the mark of perfection (based on an approximation of the percentage of that atom in our atmosphere and on its atomic number) and the 7 evenings, mornings, days?

Why is nitrogen the element of perfection?

What about hydrogen?

If the percentage of nitrogen in our atmosphere varies to say 78%, does that mess things up?

I have asked the question about Lamech before on LT - exactly what is the generational relationship between Noah and Lamech? Please double check and clarify that. It would help me.

Ref: 45, 49
I missed the reason for capitalizing the letters in EVEning, in comment >17 jwfarq:. Is that really in order to point to Eve, the woman?
Yes

That suggestion does not work in Hebrew.
Eve and evening are written the same way in Hebrew
Ref #1 = The Meridian Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary Pg 102 &259
Ref#2 = Ben-Yehuda’s English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary Pg 107
It is written in Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Eve led Adam to darkness of sin when she reasoned with him, just as EVEning always leads to darkness.
Since Eve is the mother of all living (natural life) she must be in the beginning, and here she is:
And there was EVEning, and the was morning, the first day.

richardbsmith at #36: Can there be a different ratio of the circumference to the diameter?

Well, in Holy Scripture, pi is defined as equal to "3".

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 1 Kings 7:23

3 is a decent first approximation of Pi, and probably was enough in the day. But it is not one of the numbers we are discussing as foundational to the natural world.

I think that Pi is something that might be considered a foundational number, but we are discussing 6 and 7 as numbers that are foundational to the natural world.

So far as I have learned, 6 and 7 are foundational because they are the atomic numbers for carbon and nitrogen and because creation took 6 evenings, mornings, day and the Sabbath took one more evening, morning, day.

Ref 54, 55: The meaning of creation and the message of salvation that is taught in scripture is that we are to lose carbon, the mark of the beast and the 6 evenings, mornings, days, and to find nitrogen, the mark of perfection (based on an approximation of the percentage of that atom in our atmosphere and on its atomic number) and the 7 evenings, mornings, days?

The meaning of creation and the message of salvation that is taught in scripture is that we are to lose the natural mark of the beast symbolized with 666 and find the supernatural mark of perfection symbolized with 777. These numbers bind science to the Bible by representing natural life as 666 and supernatural life in atmospheric heaven as 777. This is the foundation from a likeness of God standpoint.

Why is nitrogen the element of perfection?
It is just a gas that comprises 77.7% of the atmosphere, but it can vary slightly due to varying presence of moisture (H2O). It is the number 77.7 distilled to 777 that is important from a biblical reference standpoint.

I know there many who would discount this by saying that 77.7 is not the same number as 777. But from a spiritual sense it is the same number. In the past I coined this nuance with the expression “divine equivocation”. This is where God simply assigns a number to represent a beast (666) or Son of Man (77) or Son of God (777) or a heifer to a natural man or a lamb to Jesus. Occam’s Razor says it this way:
Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Eve in Hebrew is חַוָּה, Ḥawwāh

evening in Hebrew is עֶרֶב , erev

Why are the atomic number and an arbitrary approximation of the atmospheric percentage of nitrogen important from a biblical standpoint?

divine equivocation is a new principle - God assigns an arbitrary number to something and then hides its significance?

And he did this to follow Occam's Razor?

Ref 61:
Although I provided my reference to the source of EVEning, you didn’t, so I do not know where you obtained your information when you disputed mine. As far as I know you also didn’t check the references that I provided. Therefore I scanned my references and uploaded them so that you could check them on-line:

http://www.666markbeast.com/img/Ben-Yehuda-Engl-Heb-pg107.jpg
http://www.666markbeast.com/img/Meridian-Engl-Heb-pg102.jpg
http://www.666markbeast.com/img/Eve-EVEning.pdf

>63 jwfarq: I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but it looks from those dictionaries as if the word "eve" is with a small letter, ie it has a similar English meaning as "evening", and therefore it is not surprising that it can also be translated with the same Hebrew word. But it is not necessarily the same as the biblical name "Eve" with a capital letter. I know that in Arabic, which is the same type of language as Hebrew, the name "Eve" in the bible is "Hawa", which is not the same as the Arabic word for "eve/evening".

jwfarq
Do you mean to ask what is my source for the spelling of Eve and evening in Hebrew?

If that is what you mean, then my source is the Hebrew language.

You have listed the JPS Hebrew bible in your library. I thought that you might be able to read Hebrew to some degree.

Where is makifat when you need him?

Ref 64, 65 I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but it looks from those dictionaries as if the word "eve" is with a small letter, ie it has a similar English meaning as "evening", and therefore it is not surprising that it can also be translated with the same Hebrew word. But it is not necessarily the same as the biblical name "Eve" with a capital letter.

You argue that “eve” must be written with a capital in order to satisfy your requirement for belief that eve and evening are the same. Actually they are not the same. Evening in the days of the creation is an ordered spiritual entity that I interpret as an ordered attribute of God. We know that the Creation is spiritual only because there is no sun until day four. Not only that, the earth was empty and void. We know that there was no mortal man to till the earth until Genesis II. So it is written in Genesis II that Eve is mortal. For this reason of mortality, the mother of all living, in the order of evening of the beginning, requires a name that is eve, that not coincidentally is written the same way in Hebrew. Humans capitalize proper names, so eve is written as Eve. Because of the rules of Hebrew language it is written differently.

We could argue this until hell freezes over to no avail. I don’t care about Hebrew language experts. If you want to believe what you want to believe, you will believe what you want to believe, because you are wired to do this.

However if we apply Occam’s Razor to Eve’s relationship to Adam we see that there is a nuance here.
Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced
Both evening and Eve act the same. Eve led Adam to the darkness of sin, just as evening always leads to darkness.

My proof that evening is the beginning of the3-way path to salvation, as the mother of all living, requires much more than a single mere nuance. Hundreds if not thousands of times this relationship repeats in scripture.

I am not arguing that Eve must be written with a capital letter to justify that Eve and evening are the same. There is no argument at all.

Eve the name of the woman is spelled in Hebrew חוה . Evening is spelled ערב. They are not even close to the same word.

If you need a handy source for this basic spelling information, go check out the Hebrew bible that you have listed in your library.

Though I do find it a bit unnerving that I am hoping to find out from you about God breathed numbers and the God breathed text, yet you state that you don't care about what the text actually says, nor about the language experts who can help you to see how the words in the text are spelled, and what they actually mean.

As far as the hundreds or thousands of times the number relationship that you have found is repeated in scripture, I am still working through your first example. Once you demonstrate the first one, I will be in a better position to go to the second example.

This confusion over the name of the mother of carbon though has me concerned.

I do have a question though. Today I was with a client and his new mortgage payment just happend to be 777.32. If I can drop off the 32 cents, what significance should I take from this perfect number showing up today even as you and I are discussing that very number.

Is it a sign?

If so, what happens if the actual home insurance premium is slightly different from my estimate?

Ref 67, 68
Eve the name of the woman is spelled in Hebrew חוה . Evening is spelled ערב. They are not even close to the same word.

Yes. I have known that for a long time. That’s just the way the Hebrew language spells the proper name of a mortal Eve. But ask yourself, or some expert, how the Hebrew name gets translated to Eve in English that is not only an abbreviation of EVEning, but also part of evening. English is a far greater language than ancient Hebrew (almost universal).

Another nuance is it is written in Genesis 3:20 that Eve is the mother of all living. If Eve is the mother of all living then Eve MUST be in the beginning as evening. How else could Eve be the mother of all living if she was not in the Creation when all the living was created?

Yet another nuance is that Erev (evening spelled ערב) is defined as the “time before” (eve of). In particular the time of declining light that can be from noon to darkness. In English this is like Christmas Eve or New Year’s Eve. In Hebrew there is the eve of Passover (Erev Pesach). Evening or Erev is the time before morning. Evening or Erev is the time before Jesus in the order of morning- the Day--salvation. In other words the process through time or path = man (the time before)-Jesus-Day. Or just EVEning, morning, Day. (a progression in time with the God of Time) So how does this relate to Eve the mother of all living? Eve is before all the living because all mortal human life is born of a woman, and spiritual life begins the same way.

I do have a question though. Today I was with a client and his new mortgage payment just happend to be 777.32. If I can drop off the 32 cents, what significance should I take from this perfect number showing up today even as you and I are discussing that very number.
Is it a sign? .

It probably is. It happens to me frequently. I am not surprised anymore. If you stay on this subject, you might have to get used to it

Wow. I am a bit taken by the comment that English is a far greater language that ancient Hebrew. I would like to know more about that conclusion.

How do you decide greatness in a language?

And how does one determine relative greatness given a lack of basic familiarity to one of the languages being ranked?

As far as continuing the topic, I hope we go for a good while. There are thousands of examples of this God breathed number. I have not explored fully the first one.

I expect to have ample opportunity to have God breathe 777 on me.

In Spanish the word for Eve is Eva, but the word for evening is tarde.

Is English greater that Spanish also?

In French the word for Eve is Eve or Vie, and the word for evening is soir.

Again English is greater.

In Greek, the Septuagint, the word for Eve is Zoe (ζωη), and the word for evening is hespera (εσπερα).

Maybe we should check some others?

>69 jwfarq:

The following is taken from your comment 57

Eve and evening are written the same way in Hebrew
Ref #1 = The Meridian Hebrew/English English/Hebrew Dictionary Pg 102 &259
Ref#2 = Ben-Yehuda’s English-Hebrew Hebrew-English Dictionary Pg 107

And I am still confused about the timing of Eve the mother of carbon coming out of Adam's side?

Going back to the payment discussed with my client about $777.32. What happens if the insurance changes and the final payment is different from $777.32? What do I do with the extra 32 cents?

And finally, the client actually chose another payment option anyway - how should I interpret that?

I recently had another client whose phone number had 666 in it.

I think you are right that these things will keep showing up.

Did you notice that the exact comment number in which I was writing about 777 was comment 77?

How cool is that!

Etymology Eve

The Latin (Vulgate) Eva, from Ancient Greek Εὔα (Εua), from Classical Hebrew חַוָּה (ḥawwah). A Latinate variant of the English Eve.

edit Pronunciation
Rhymes: -iːvə, can also be said ay-va

Etymoloty eve

"evening," O.E. æfen, with pre-1200 loss of terminal -n, which was mistaken for an inflexion; from P.Gmc. *æbando- (cf. O.Fris. ewnd, O.H.G. aband, Ger. abend, O.N. aptann), of uncertain origin. Now superseded in its original sense by evening (q.v.). Meaning "day before a saint's day or festival"

Eve is from the Hebrew, to the Greek, to Latin, to English and French - some translations though focus on the meaning of the Hebrew rather than the sound of the Hebrew. The translations that focus on the meaning use a phrase that conveys life or living.

eve is from proto Germanic, to Old English to English

According to (at least one) rabbinical tradition, Chava derives from the hebrew root for "life" (chai) , and Adam's wife was Chava because she "gave life to you all".

At a stretch, "Eve", sounds a little bit like "Chava" , so maybe its one of those false friend folk etymologies.

It can be interesting to guess the ancient pronounciations based on the spelling of phonetic translations.

Like CHAVA (Hebrew) to EUA (Greek) to EVA (Latin) to EVA (French) to EVE (English). It almost makes it seem like us Englishers have gotten lazy and decided to mispronounce the word - reducing the originally two syllable word to one syllable and a silent final e.

But it gives support that the U sound in Greek should be close to a V sound.

Looks to me like the same argument that a small number of Christians make that the English KJV is God's word par excellence, and that all other languages and all other translations are secondary. If the basis of numerology is a language which didn't even exist when the texts were originally written, then I'm afraid that casts real doubts on the whole thing.

I'm puzzled by the mother of carbon thing, since in Genesis 1, Adam and Eve were not created till the sixth day, after all other living things, and in Genesis 2 Eve is even more clearly created LAST of all living things.

Ref 70: How do you decide greatness in a language?
And how does one determine relative greatness given a lack of basic familiarity to one of the languages being ranked?

I was merely referring to amount of usage among educated peoples of the world from just a usage standpoint. Note that Chinese is 937 million as opposed to 332 million for both English and Spanish. However in prior years I did research on the numerology of English, just as I did for Gemtatria. (Hebrew), and what I found was startling. This probably influenced my statement about the greatness of English language.

I too had a problem relating Eve to evening after my special revelation. It took about a year of research for me to finally believe it. What really influenced me, however, were not only the nuances described above, but mostly these three things.
1. The discovery of the 3-way introductory path to God as God of the 4-way cross
2. The discovery of the birth of reason in the Creation
3. The discovery of foundational numbers in the Creation that underwrite all scripture
Eve as evening is not necessary for these conclusions, but Eve as evening supports these conclusions 100s if not 1000s of times in scripture.

Ref 72, 83: You left out Arabic, and Allah in your list of languages, even as you forgot Eva for Spanish in your summarization list of Eve. Also note pronunciation in your etymology of Eve – Ref 79.

>87 jwfarq: You left out Arabic

Maybe because he noticed I had already mentioned in in >64 John5918:?

ref 85

She's not styled the mother of all living things, just the mother of all humans (except Adam), i.e. the mother of all "you" putative descendents of the first couple.

Ref 76: And I am still confused about the timing of Eve the mother of carbon coming out of Adam's side?

First is a spiritual creation in Genesis I, where God separates spiritual Light from darkness and calls her to Himself by naming her Day. He also calls her good, so that she is then Holy—the Holy Spirit of Light. In this way order is created from the chaos of darkness.

Second is a symbolically similar creation in the world in Genesis 3, where humans are used to represent separation instead of spiritual entities. Eve is separated from Adam by extracting a rib from him. Both symbolically represent the process of separation so that life can begin.

Spiritual life (eternal) begins in heaven with the Holy Spirit of Light after morning of course. Worldly life begins after being born from a woman—the mother of all living.

The timing is heaven and earth, where heaven is first and earth is second.

Ref 64, 88, 89:
63 I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but it looks from those dictionaries as if the word "eve" is with a small letter, ie it has a similar English meaning as "evening", and therefore it is not surprising that it can also be translated with the same Hebrew word. But it is not necessarily the same as the biblical name "Eve" with a capital letter. I know that in Arabic, which is the same type of language as Hebrew, the name "Eve" in the bible is "Hawa", which is not the same as the Arabic word for "eve/evening".

>87 jwfarq: You left out Arabic
Maybe because he noticed I had already mentioned in in >64 John5918:?

You are probably correct that Arabic was already covered. I missed it amongst the many postings here like ground hogs popping out of holes. Where is my second hammer?

Actually there are several good reasons that Eve should be written differently than evening, even though they act the same in a spiritual sense.

First you referenced the 2 dictionaries that I placed on line as Eve and evening having similar meaning, but you did not reference the 3rd on-line pdf.
http://www.666markbeast.com/img/Eve-EVEning.pdf
In the dictionaries it is written that the same Hebrew word for evening represents 1) mixture, 2) wild beasts, 3) desert dweller, 4) Bedouin, 5) Arab.
Since Eve is a mixture of spiritual evening as part of God and mortal humans on earth like wild beasts, desert dwellers, Bedouin, and Arabs, the word for Eve MUST be different than evening. And it is.

Second reason Ref 89: She's not styled the mother of all living things, just the mother of all humans (except Adam), i.e. the mother of all "you" putative descendents of the first couple.

Good point! Since Eve is not the mother of all living (like fish, birds and creeping things) and only the mother of mortal humans on earth, the word for Eve MUST be different than evening. And it is.

So there should be no conflict about Eve being written differently than evening.

I'm reminded of the following passage from Erasmus' Praise of Folly, describing the bumbling preaching of vain monks:

I have heard myself one, and he no small fool- I was mistaken, I would have said scholar- that being in a famous assembly explaining the mystery of the Trinity, that he might both let them see his learning was not ordinary and withal satisfy some theological ears, he took a new way, to wit from the letters, syllables, and the word itself; then from the coherence of the nominative case and the verb, and the adjective and substantive: and while most of the audience wondered, and some of them muttered that of Horace, "What does all this trumpery drive at?" at last he brought the matter to this head, that he would demonstrate that the mystery of the Trinity was so clearly expressed in the very rudiments of grammar that the best mathematician could not chalk it out more plainly. And in this discourse did this most superlative theologian beat his brains for eight whole months that at this hour he's as blind as a beetle, to wit, all the sight of his eyes being run into the sharpness of his wit. But for all that he thinks nothing of his blindness, rather taking the same for too cheap a price of such a glory as he won thereby.

And besides him I met with another, some eighty years of age, and such a divine that you'd have sworn Scotus himself was revived in him. He, being upon the point of unfolding the mystery of the name Jesus, did with wonderful subtlety demonstrate that there lay hidden in those letters whatever could be said of him; for that it was only declined with three cases, he said, it was a manifest token of the Divine Trinity; and then, that the first ended in S, the second in M, the third in U, there was in it an ineffable mystery, to wit, those three letters declaring to us that he was the beginning, middle, and end (summum, medium, et ultimum) of all. Nay, the mystery was yet more abstruse; for he so mathematically split the word Jesus into two equal parts that he left the middle letter by itself, and then told us that that letter in Hebrew was schin or sin, and that sin in the Scotch tongue, as he remembered, signified as much as sin; from whence he gathered that it was Jesus that took away the sins of the world. At which new exposition the audience were so wonderfully intent and struck with admiration, especially the theologians, that there wanted little but that Niobe-like they had been turned to stones; whereas the like has almost happened to me, as befell the Priapus in Horace.

(From the version hosted at Fordham's Modern History Sourcebook.)

Ref 91

FYI, Hebrew hasn't got the equivalent of an upper case and a lower case.

There is a script form which looks different from the "Square Letters", and there's an older form which is essentially the Phonecian alphabet which was in use before the "Square Letters" came into vogue...I gather that the Samaritan scriptures still use the old "Hebrew" (Phonecian) letters, but in neither the Square Letters nor the script form does one have an upper case and lower case.

There's also the Rashi script, which looks mostly like the regular Square Letters, with a few exceptions, and is (Arguably) easier to write than the regular "Square Letters", but that's pretty much it.

No wonder we are channeling Occam, this gets more simpler with each comment.

I still don't think we have come to terms with the correct spelling of Eve, but let's move on.

Ok, so help me understand - what is a spiritual creation, as opposed to a normal creation?

I thought we were discussion number 6 and 7 as foundational to the natural order.

BTW
In 87 you referred to numerology. I had thought that was not the correct name for what we are learning. I thought we are learning God breathed numbers.

Ref 77, 78: Did you notice that the exact comment number in which I was writing about 777 was comment 77?

How cool is that!

Ahhhh yes. The 77 signature of the One who brings 777.

Daniel's prophetic End Times vision of 77 months of evenings and mornings, is like the Face of God numbered with 77 generations of evenings and mornings counted on the seventh day of the Creation that begins the Old Testament, that is also like three sets of 77 generations in Matthew’s descending genealogy of the Son of Man that begins the New Testament, that is also like 77 Patriarchs in Luke's ascending genealogy of the Son of God that leads back up to God.

How cool is that?

Ref 94: BTW
In 87 you referred to numerology. I had thought that was not the correct name for what we are learning. I thought we are learning God breathed numbers.

There is a difference between the numbers developed from the letters and words of human language that I classify as numerology, and the God breathed numbers of scripture. The numbers of scripture include not only the clearly written numbers like the 666 number of the beast and the 777 age of Lamech, but also the developed numbers from both lists and implications within scripture. This is not numerology to me. Some people term God’s numbers as numerology, but these are not man-made.

Ok, so help me understand - what is a spiritual creation, as opposed to a normal creation?

I don’t know what a “normal” creation is. I think you mean traditional.

The biblical creation is a spiritual creation because:
1. The earth is written as empty and void. In other words it is not material. In other words it is spiritual.
2. The lights (sun and moon) are not placed in the sky until the fourth day. Therefore evening and morning cannot exist as a solar day. Therefore they must be spiritual entities as is the entire creation in Genesis I is until after the seventh day.
3. A mortal human does not exist in Genesis 1, because it is written that there was no man to till the earth in Genesis 2. Therefore Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation of man.

I guess my question then is what is a spiritual creation as compared to a traditional creation?

The traditional (fundamentalist) idea of the Creation is that the earth was created in 6 solar days about 5800 years ago. They count backwards from the present using the age of the patriarchs to determine the exact date. Orthodox Jews do the same thing. Mankind (Adam and Eve) just popped into existence to start things off. There was no evolution, there were no dinosaurs or fossils, God just spoke it and it was there. I am not a good source to explain how fundamentalist Christians think. Ask any pastor and most of them will provide you with something that fits their consolidated group idea. Basically they develop an idea, get together into a denominational group and vote on it. They get used it and it becomes doctrine. If you don’t believe you are labeled a heretic.

I had a conversation with a pastor that read one of my books that included my interpretation of the creation, where there was no man to till the earth. He said the early man probably didn’t know how to till the earth. Basically he said he believed the literal Word of the Creation.

I too believe the literal word of the Creation, but I believe Genesis I to the tilling of the earth is a spiritual Creation of man and not a material creation. That comes later when God breathed life into the nose to form a living man.

OK, progress.

What is a spiritual creation? Maybe a creation without material?

So in Genesis 1.1 the earth is tohu and bohu (whatever that means). You take those words to mean that it is a non material, spiritual, earth, not like that which the text might seem to suggest as being material but without real form and structure?

The wind/spirit is moving over the surface of what?

Are you meaning that the spirit is moving over the surface of the spiritual earth?

Ref 99: So in Genesis 1.1 the earth is tohu and bohu (whatever that means).

I have no idea what tohu and bohu means, or where it comes from. I know it’s not in any Creation that I ever read. (next)

You take those words to mean that it is a non material, spiritual, earth, not like that which the text might seem to suggest as being material but without real form and structure?

Yes

The wind/spirit is moving over the surface of what?
Are you meaning that the spirit is moving over the surface of the spiritual earth?

What wind? What surface? Where do you get this stuff from? Whooooops! I see now that you got it from the 1999 Hebrew-English Edition Tanakh

We cannot communicate intelligently if you do not give me the source when you quote this crap. Humans modernize and destroy the original meaning of the Bible. It infuriates me to spend time tracking this down.

Here are correct versions of the second sentence of the Bible:

1917 Hebrew-English Edition Tanakh (JPS)
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

American Standard Version Gen 1:2
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

King James Version Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
And the earth was formless and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

Why this is important is that evening and morning is the face of God, where evening in the 6th sentence becomes the Face of God between God and deep spiritual darkness. And morning becomes the Face of God between God and the cleansing waters.

You don’t meet and talk to the surface of someone. But you do talk to the face of someone, where that someone can be a human or a spiritual entity. Why this is important is that Jesus is incarnated from the Face of God, where Evening furnished His flesh and blood, while morning provided the cleansing water. When Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man He was referring to evening in Him as the mother of flesh and blood. When Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God He was referring to His order of morning who brings the cleansing water-dew.

I am getting weary of this. This could take forever.

>100 jwfarq: I have no idea what tohu and bohu means, or where it comes from. I know it’s not in any Creation that I ever read

Isn't "tohu wa bohu" the opening of Genesis in Hebrew, ie part of the creation story?

Humans modernize and destroy the original meaning of the Bible

And yet you appear to be completely unaware of the "original" meaning of the bible in the languages in which it was written. If numerology only works for certain "correct" English translations and is unaware of the original languages, then it seems rather contrived.

Edited to add: On rereading, that may appear harsher than I intended, but my basic question is how numerology can be foundational if it depends on particular translations of the bible into a particular modern language.

jwfarq,
I am sorry about not giving references. Basically I am using the bible.

tohu and bohu from the bible, Genesis 1.1
the wind/spirit (ruah) moving over the water, Genesis 1.1

Yes it could take sometime, we have thousands of proofs of the God breathed numbers from your special revelation. So far I am still unconvinced about the first proof, involving EVEning. And now I am unconvinced about the second proof that the first creation story is a spiritual creation.

ETA
The good news about this being a long topic is that we can see what the comment is for numbers 777 and 7777!

I guess I expect scholars who have studied the bible, or at least specific aspects especially relating to the languages of the bible, to have at least a basic understanding of the languages of the bible.

You have shown that does not necessarily need to be the case.

I will try to be more sensitive to your demonstrated lack of proficiency in, or even minimal exposure to, biblical languages and generally well known biblical scholarship.

When Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God He was referring to His order of morning who brings the cleansing water-dew.

Is this based on the words son and sun sounding similar?

Humans modernize and destroy the original meaning of the Bible.

I am not really sure what to make of this statement. Are there others who are using the bible and would prefer humans to leave it alone?

What is the original meaning of the Bible? Is it your 666/777 special revelation that has EVEning and morning and day as the face of God?

Ref 101: And yet you appear to be completely unaware of the "original" meaning of the bible in the languages in which it was written. If numerology only works for certain "correct" English translations and is unaware of the original languages, then it seems rather contrived.

Edited to add: On rereading, that may appear harsher than I intended, but my basic question is how numerology can be foundational if it depends on particular translations of the bible into a particular modern language.

Apparently you did not read the first part of my post 96. So in the name of repetition here it is again:

There is a difference between the numbers developed from the letters and words of human language that I classify as numerology, and the God breathed numbers of scripture. The numbers of scripture include not only the clearly written numbers like the 666 number of the beast and the 777 age of Lamech, but also the developed numbers from both lists and implications within scripture. This is not numerology to me. Some people term God’s numbers as numerology, but these are not man-made.

Ref 103: And now I am unconvinced about the second proof that the first creation story is a spiritual creation.

Apparently you did not read the second part of my post 96. So in the name of repetition here it is again:

The biblical creation is a spiritual creation because:
1. The earth is written as empty and void. In other words it is not material. In other words it is spiritual.
2. The lights (sun and moon) are not placed in the sky until the fourth day. Therefore evening and morning cannot exist as a solar day. Therefore they must be spiritual entities as is the entire creation in Genesis I is until after the seventh day.
3. A mortal human does not exist in Genesis 1, because it is written that there was no man to till the earth in Genesis 2. Therefore Genesis 1 is a spiritual creation of man.

Before we can move on I should have an answer. Which one of the above postulates is false. If you do not respond, as you did not before, I must assume again that you agree with all of them.

Ref 103, 104: tohu and bohu from the bible, Genesis 1.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu

Darkness in Genesis 1:2 is spiritual darkness or chaos just as your reference above explains. God created order when He separated Light from the chaos of darkness.

I do not agree with postulates 1, 2, and 3. Or for that matter, that your conclusion follows even if the 3 postulates are accepted.

What is a spiritual darkness if the only entity is God until God made light?

Maybe some of the people in this group who are following this exchange and who are convinced by your evidence might comment and help you persuade me.

Ok. Lets take postulate #1. How can earth be material if it is empty and void.

Is it there? Does a lack of form require a lack of existence? Does a lack of material existence require a spiritual existence?

Of course the first issue is exactly what tohu and bohu mean. And that meaning is uncertain. To base any detailed construction on such initial uncertainty is chancy.

ETA
Well actually the first issue is whether the creation stories are myth or factual historical accounts.

tohu v'bohu.....Chaos, disorder, "higgledy-piggledy"

Hershel's description of Darwin's theory of evolution - higgledy-piggledy.

Chaos and disorder come to mind from the Genesis 1st account, but I think it is more looking at darkness.

And I absolutely think the story suggests something material exists over which the wind moves, when Elohim begins creation of heaven and earth.

The fix for tohu and bohu is light. The problem is that darkness covered the deep. And light is good.

Maybe two primal fears - deep darkness and deep water.

Ref 113 (I think). I must assume that your post 113 is a response to my postulate 112. This is not good that I have to assume this reference. Where are the rules of information exchange here? Lets start over again with .

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
And the earth was formless and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

The biblical creation is a spiritual creation because:
1. The earth is written as formless and void. In other words it is not material. In other words it is spiritual.

The question to you Richard is: How can earth be material if the earth was formless and void?

ref 113: Is it there?

Is what there? Earth? The question? If you mean the earth, then the answer is the earth is not there physically because it is not only formless but void also.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of FORMLESS
1: having no regular form or shape
2: lacking order or arrangement
3: having no physical existence
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of VOID
1: not occupied : b : not inhabited :
2: containing nothing

If you agree with me the earth is both formless and void in Genesis 1:2 and therefore having no physical existence then answer YES. Otherwise answer no and ANSWER the question for Postulate #1 above.

> 116. In other words it is not material. In other words it is spiritual.

This is not an either/or. There are non-material entities other than "spiritual" ones -- e.g. ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc. All it takes is a non-material mind that behaves in a manner consistent with a material mind.

the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

What about the waters -- are we talking hydrogen & oxygen? We might be back to re-thinking the earliest pre-Socratic philosopher Thales, who held that the origien of all matter is water. Water is not a spiritual entity. Unless we're talking holy water.

The question is material or spiritual. You have postulated that because the earth was tohu and bohu that all was spirit.

I am saying that your conclusion does not follow - material without form is still material. And Gen 1.1 refers to a deep and to water.

I will follow up with JB's version of the question - "What about the water?" That question is kind of what I was trying to get from you in >99 richardbsmith:.

Ref 117: This is not an either/or.

Yes it is. Either I am right or I am wrong. If you cannot prove I am wrong then I am right.

There are non-material entities other than "spiritual" ones -- e.g. ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc.

Not in the Bible. The Bible is a manual for the human spirit to find and return to God with. As such it is a manual for the spirit of man. As such it is a spiritual manual. It is not a manual of human ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc. In any case ideas, values, mirages, and dreams are not physical. Ideas, values, mirages, and dreams are not material. Your suggestion is out of context with the question for my postulate #1.

Who is the jury on whether you have been proven right or wrong?

I am ready for the vote.

ETA
I am actually hoping you are voted right. That way those who have been convinced by your evidence will be able to help teach me. I have been too slow to learn the God breathed numbers directly from you.

ETAA
I am sorry about the "proven right or wrong" choice. The standard is you have to be proven wrong, if not then you are right. It is kind of like our judicial system in which the accused is innocent unless proven guilty.

So, let me rephrase: "Who is the jury to determine whether you have been proven wrong by your presentation of your evidence?"

So, presumably jwfarq, you, or that part of your spirit that is human, have returned to God. Is that the case?

Robert

#119 Either I am right or I am wrong. If you cannot prove I am wrong then I am right.

Quoted for...
...something.

> 119. Either I am right or I am wrong. If you cannot prove I am wrong then I am right.

OK. You are wrong, and here's the proof.

This, according to you, is postulate 1: 1. The earth is written as empty and void. In other words it is not material. In other words it is spiritual.

Postulate 1 states that there are only two options for "the earth" at its origin -- either it is material OR it is spiritual. In other words, Postulate 1 is -- there are only two states of existence: "material" and "spiritual."

in # 119, you state: "Ideas, values, mirages, and dreams are not material. "

I submit that they are also not "spiritual". You appear to agree with that, since you state that the Bible is a "spiritual" manual, "not a manual of human ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc."

Therefore, we have invalidated Postulate 1 because we have found some things that are neither "material" nor "spiritual" -- i.e., "ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc."

Since Postulate 1 is invalidated, your argument collapses.

In sum, you are wrong.

edited to correct spelling error

JB,
Your comment is 123. How cool is that.

I am so ready to get to 777.

Ref 118: The question is material or spiritual.

Yes. You are correct. But you did not answer the question for the first statement of Genesis 1:2—material or spiritual. Instead you ignored my question and moved directly to the second statement of Genesis 1:2
.
You have postulated that because the earth was tohu and bohu that all was spirit.

This is about the second statement of Genesis 1:2 that I already answered. At the end of my post 108. It is not about the outstanding question.

I am saying that your conclusion does not follow - material without form is still material. And Gen 1.1 refers to a deep and to water.
I will follow up with JB's version of the question - "What about the water?" That question is kind of what I was trying to get from you in >99 richardbsmith:.

I believe we are talking about Genesis 1:2.
What about the water? This is about the third statement in Gen 1:2. It seems to me that every time Jesus spoke of water it was spiritual water from His mouth. Look it up.

Remember Occam’s Razor. Keep it simple (KISS) and stay focused on statement 1 of Gen 1:2. Make a decision. Statement 1 is separate from 2 and 3. There are three things. Finish the first and we can move on to 2 and 3.

Humans are wired to think like humans. One of those wires is herd mentality. If you need to vote on it then vote on it and move on.

It is really hard to keep your system simple. It is one of the more convoluted things I have encountered.

And while you have made many unfounded statements, you have not answered any questions.

However, to restate my answer to your question, "How can earth be material if the earth was formless and void?"

***** the material that formed the earth is material whether or not it has form *******

Spiritual does not follow from the absense of form, nor does it follow from a void. The earth did not have a shape, nor did it contain anything, except of course the water.

That "if the earth is without form then it is spiritual" is a postulate that does not hold water.

BTW, my guess is that you have not met the entire herd of LT posters if you think that the commenters here have a herd mentality.

According to the Genesis narrative, before the world was created, all was water. The text is pretty clear that the spirit of the lord (or was it just the name of the lord?) floated over the face of the waters. He created a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. So the world is a bubble in the great cosmic ocean. Later, in the flood story, He let the cosmic waters from "Above" pour into the bubble, "Raining" down on it, and flooding it.

If I'm not mistaken, the Babylonians had something of the same story; so either they (the Hebrews and the Babylonians) got their stories from the same ancestral source, or one picked it up from the other.

Anyway, that other folk told similar tales with the same idea (it was all water) gives us some confidence that our reading of the text is not whackingly out of line.

Ref 123:
in # 119, you state: "Ideas, values, mirages, and dreams are not material. "

I submit that they are also not "spiritual". You appear to agree with that, since you state that the Bible is a "spiritual" manual, "not a manual of human ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc."

Therefore, we have invalidated Postulate 1 because we have found some things that are neither "material" nor "spiritual" -- i.e., "ideas, values, mirages, dreams, etc."

Since Postulate 1 is invalidated, your argument collapses.

In sum, you are wrong.

I see what you mean, and you have a point if only the first statement of Gen 1:2 is considered by itself. But your theory is out of context. Human ideas, values, mirages, dreams are not in context with both Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The context of Gen 1:2 is in the beginning before humans were in existence, before human ideas, values, mirages, dreams were even possible. Only later after Gen 2:5 is a human formed from the dust of the earth. The reality is Gen 1:2 is in context with Gen 1:1 when human ideas, values, mirages, dreams were non-existent. Here it is in context with Gen 1:1.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And the earth was formless and void;

Since your proposition that human ideas, values, mirages, dreams assumes humans were in existence during the beginning is invalid, your argument collapses. Good try though.

modalursine,
The parallel with Genesis 1 that I have found most convincing is with the Egyptian mythologies. I am a bit rusty on the topic but I remember the correlations being very close, and the traditions of relations with Egypt make the Genesis dependency on Egyptian mythology very believable.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of FORMLESS
1: having no regular form or shape
2: lacking order or arrangement
3: having no physical existence

Since you are making the English text central, I would point out that Merriam-Webster is a 20th-century dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary treats English historically, and the entry for "formless" was published in the late 19th century, surveying English usage back to the earliest records. The word formless is attested only from 1597 onwards, and the definition reads "Devoid of, or wanting in, form; shapeless; having no determinate or regular form. Said both of material and immaterial things." Although applied to things "having no physical existence", it does not itself mean that, at least in English texts predating 1900. There is no listed sense of "form" that means "physical existence". So the meaning you cite from Merriam-Webster was not available to the translators of early English bibles who wrote of the earth as "without form".

Ref 127: It is really hard to keep your system simple.

Its not my system, believe me.

And while you have made many unfounded statements, you have not answered any questions.

All my statements are founded in the Foundational Creation.
I have answered many questions. You have just not accepted my answers.

However, to restate my answer to your question, "How can earth be material if the earth was formless and void?"
***** the material that formed the earth is material whether or not it has form *******

You cannot escape from the box—the same box that Nicodemus was in when he asked Jesus how to crawl back in his mother’s womb in order to be reborn. Don’t be sad. You are wired to think like a human, and it seems that you cannot escape from the box in the world and see the amazing spiritual side of the Bible’s message.

What can’t you understand about the Bible having been written as a spiritual manual using material things of the world to illustrate spiritual concepts? Jesus did this all the time with His parables. Why do you think the Creation would be any different?

It is very much your system, believe me.

And no, you have not answered any questions. You have made unfounded statements.

One of my first questions, what is a spiritual creation?

OK, anyway.
You have failed to show the EVEning is related to Eve.
You have failed to show that tohu and bohu mean that the first creation story is a spiritual creation.

Let's move on to something else. Maybe you can convince someone of something being true in your special revelation.

How about something more tangible. Like one of the God breathed numbers being foundational in the natural world.

You offered carbon and nitrogen as proof that 6 and 7 are foundational numbers. Is there more to indicate the God breathed numbers are foundational?

> 129. Since your proposition that human ideas, values, mirages, dreams assumes humans were in existence during the beginning is invalid, your argument collapses.

Not so fast.

First -- "ideas, values, mirages, dreams" do not have to be human "ideas, values, mirages, dreams". Remember Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Notice 2 things: (1) God is talking to someone, in other words there is at least one other person/entity present, and (2) God says "our image". So God is talking about creating something that will be an image of at least 2 things -- (1) God and (2) whoever else God is talking to. Now we can assume that this other person/entity is human-like, since humans are an adequate image of that other person/entity. Being human-like, this person/entity will, of necessity, have "ideas, values, mirages, dreams." Why? Because the "image" of that person/entity has them. How could an "image" have something that the original did not have? Therefore, "ideas, values, mirages, dreams" predate humans.

Second -- Jesus was/is human. He was also with God "in the beginning," according to John 1:1. (As a parenthetical aside, please note that 1:1 establishes a perfect one-to-one correspondence between Jesus and God. But this is beside the point.) It could very well be that Jesus was the other person/entity that God was talking to. As a human, Jesus had ""ideas, values, mirages, dreams." Therefore, even if these things are human, they were present at the origin and precede humanity.

Since we agree that ""ideas, values, mirages, dreams" are not material and not spiritual, and we now see that ""ideas, values, mirages, dreams" existed from the beginning, once again Postulate # 1 is invalidated.

JW,
BTW, I was curious. Who published your books?

Ref 136: BTW, I was curious. Who published your books?

My four books in print were published by Mark 7 Publishing. My last book was just published again as an Ebook by Smashwords.com. If you search for "confirmation bias" in the search box on Smashwords at the top it will come up.

BTW, tell me what you see when you bring up Google.

Today's month = 4 like the 4-way cross. Today is 24th or just 6666 hours. I'm feeling lucky today.

Is Mark 7 publishing a specialty company?

It is extremely amazing that integers follow each other. I have always been amazed that there is a 4th month each year.

I did not tell you this but my cell phone number has 345 in it. And 3+4=7.

Damn, we have been talking about 7 all this time, and it was in my cell phone number.

Plus, another amazing fact - the company that published your book has 7 in its name. That is a very convincing coincidence about God breathed numbers.

Ref 138: Is Mark 7 publishing a specialty company?

Yes

Ref 139: It is extremely amazing that integers follow each other.

Here is a test for your visualization with a numbers application. Take the 10 commandments and see that the first 4 commandments are for man's instruction that relate to God--the 4-way God of the cross. Then understand that the next 6 integers number 6 basic natures of man as God's commandments on how man should be obedient. ( 4 for God, 6 for man)

Then imagine a 6 petal star of David, where each petal is numbered 1 to 6. Then add up the petals like this:
(1+6) = 7.
(2+5) = 7
(3+4) = 7
Then place the 777 in the middle of the star of David to see what I see.

BTW, tell me what you see when you bring up Google.

Ref 135: Since we agree that ""ideas, values, mirages, dreams" are not material and not spiritual, and we now see that ""ideas, values, mirages, dreams" existed from the beginning, once again
Postulate # 1 is invalidated.

Nope! Once again you are out of context.
Gen 1:2 is before the sixth sentence, before your human-like entities were generated.
Here’s how it is. In Gen 1:4 God separated Light from darkness and called her day like Himself. So the Holy Spirit of Light became as one the Eternal Father (DAY). Then in Gen 1:5 they had two offspring – a daughter and a Son whose names were evening and morning. When God spoke in terms of OUR and US He was speaking to these SPIRITUAL entities that you call human-like. Since they were developed after Gen 1:2 your argument is out of context and therefore invalid.

Postulate #1 is still valid. Good try though.

ref 130
You may be right, I don't know enough about the Egyptian stories to say for sure, but then again:
Freud, in Moses and Monotheism, comments on how many points of difference there are between the traditional Egyptian religions and religion of the Hebrews. Clearly, the Egyptians were big on multiple gods and on thereomorphic gods, whereas the Hebrews insisted on one High God who is immaterial, but also in some way humanoid in that they hold that man is created "in god's image". He's never pictured or described as having say a Jackals head as an Egyptian god might be.

Then too, the Egyptians were notably concerned with the afterlife, one's fate therein, what to say to the guardians of the underworld and so on. On that point the scriptures are pretty much silent.

The Egyptians went in for opulent burials with rich grave goods. The Hebrews say bury your dead in a shroud with no grave goods at all.

Preserving the desceased body, by embalming or mummification or whatever is just so far away from traditional jewish corpse avoidance its
remarkable.

Belief in an afterlife did not become normative in Judaism until the Rabbinic period, fairly recently as these things are counted. Except among the ultra pietist groupuscules, the world to come is not much mentioned or dwelt upon. Its just not a big deal for most jews, as it seems to be for "ordinary" christians.

The seemingly systematic purging of Egyptian elements from jewish scriptures makes me think that its unlikely that Egyptian sources figure heavily as sources for the hebrew scriptures, or at least not consciously.

On the other hand, there are clear parallels with the Epic of Gigamesh , to cite one example, and that comes from farther North, Akkadian if I remember properly, not from Egypt.

Which Egyptian sources seem like good candidates?

Ref 142 Preserving the desceased body, by embalming or mummification or whatever is just so far away from traditional jewish corpse avoidance its
remarkable.

Not so far away. Both Joseph and his father Jacob were embalmed by the Egyptians. Both mummies were carried away to the birth place of Jesus. Both appear directly before Jesus in the Matthew Son of Man natural descending Genealogy. Even today scientists can retrieve DNA from mummies.
See Gen 50.2,3, 25, 26

modalursine,
The ties between the Egyptian creation myths and the Genesis 1 creation myth, if they are real parallels, do not stretch to other aspects of religious practice.

I will need to look up the source again to get more detailed, again I am very rusty on Egyptian mythologiesl

JW
That is excellent. Yes I agree - 1+6=7, and all the other pairs also add to 7. This thing gets even more cool with each comment.

Actually, if you add then together again it equals 21. Which BTW can be written as 3 times 7, and that brings in the Trinity.

It just keeps getting better.

Sorry I have not googled you yet.

>145 richardbsmith: If you add the digits of post >145 richardbsmith:, 1+4+5 (=10) and then subtract the number of digits (3), you get 7.

Did anyone ever notice how much the number 7 and the symbol ? resemble each other?

The older I get, the more pronounced this similarity gets. I like to think that's because I grow wiser as I grow older and am more likely to see the interconnectedness of all things. This feeling is confirmed as I look out onto the world and see things blur together. The outlines that, in my youth, seemed so clearly to define the separateness of things grow fainter and fainter and everything blends and mixes into a big blob.

Which leads to another observation -- did you ever notice how similar the words blob and blog are? The interesting thing, numerologically, about this is as follows: if you assign each letter of the alphabet its appropriate number, b=2 and g=6. Now, 2 is the same as two ones, and 6 is the same as two threes. One and three -- the mystery of God, the One in Three AND the Three in One. Two ones vs. two threes -- at first it looks like two different things, but if you think about it long enough, you see that it amounts to the same thing, after all, since the one is three and the three is one.

So, blog=blob. This explains many things.

edited to change the spelling of blob to blog

Ref 148: Did anyone ever notice how much the number 7 and the symbol ? resemble each other?

I can appreciate this reference when I realize how long humans never did see 7 in 77 or 777.

Also in a whimsical mood I see a 4-way God on the front page of Google (today only) with a vertical zipper ready to be opened and something revealed. I see evening at the foot of the cross and clockwise I see morning at the right side of Day and at the top is Light—the Most High Holy Spirit of Light, Since EVEning is the mother of all flesh and blood I see God in the flesh and blood of all mankind. (25% in all of us)

What if God was one of us just a blog, blob. I mean slob like one of us. Just a slob on the bus trying to make His way home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOw7EuiFz0k&NR=1&feature=fvwp

ref 140

I tried what you said for the star of David! It is amazing!

However I am confuse by the diagrams for 5 and 6 sided figures?

Please see diagram...

http://www.librarything.com/wiki/images/0/0e/6isNotAnswer.png

Ref 150
Now that I can stop laughing, I see that you have the 4-way cross at the upper left. Very Good.

However I am confuse by the diagrams for 5 and 6 sided figures?

The 6 sided hexagon contains the 6 triangles for the beast before it opens into the 6 petal Star of David.
It works like this (3 triangle sides x 6) = 18 = 6+6+6 = 666

misericordia
That helped - a picture is worth many words, or numbers for that matter. :)

#148: Did anyone ever notice how much the number 7 and the symbol ? resemble each other?

The 7 also resembles the et sign, ⁊, which is basically another form of the &. Which makes sense, because a question mark is basically like the &, just one asking the other person to fill in the other side.

Ow. I knew I didn't want to look at this conversation.

What? We're digging deep into reality here.

You forgot the Seven Dwarves - physical anthropology and comparative mythology

You do understand that four is sometimes a holey number, and sometimes not, but six, nine and zero are always, and eight is twice so.

And then there's 007.

Eight is a holey number, because of the two loops. Seven is more a holy number.

160: Yes, but 007 is a double holey number. And licensed to kill.

That's why seven eight nine.

Is August 08 a national Holey Day ?

4 + 4 = 8

Three 7's might fly, but four 7's is perfect!

I guess so, but August 06 is the Feast of the TransFIGUREation...

3 + 2 + 1 = 6

Somebody turned the batshit to 11.

Well, it's one more, innit?

156> you forgot 7-11

well, here we all are making a mockery of numerology, but frankly, I don't see the real difference between numerology and Christian theology. They're both deeply bonkers and pointless, with the same lack of validity. But hey, it's fun!

38

38

Personal attacks are strictly prohibited by the TOS, Murr.

?????

sorry, that should be 777777

Ref 156: >154 timspalding:, >155 2wonderY: is correct - a discussion of 7 covers almost everything and if you drag 6 into the mix then you get 6x7 = 42 which, of course, is everything (at least it's the answer...)

42 which, of course, is everything (at least it's the answer...) is revealed by the 42 generations of the genealogy of the Son of Man = 14+14+14 = 77+77+77

Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.

Ref 155: What? We're digging deep into reality here. .

2wonderY numbers of 7 speak reality look at it this way

Daniel's prophetic End Times vision of 77 months of evenings and mornings is like the Face of God numbered with 77 generations of evenings and mornings counted on the seventh day of the Creation, that is also like three sets of 77 generations in Matthew’s descending genealogy of the Son of Man that begins the New Testament, that is also like 77 Patriarchs in Luke's ascending genealogy of the Son of God that leads back up to God.

Is it possible that Matthew 1.17 is describing a geneaology that might not be exactly and literally historically accurate? Does the precise historical accuracy matter to the God breathed 14+14+14 revelation?

>170 QuentinTom:

I think that any approach to scriptures that insists on its exclusive and special rightness based on an overly literal interpretation that selects and drives specific texts out of contexts is misguided.

#166

I am sorry Robert, but you have it wrong. It's

3 x 2 x 1 = 6

Ref 175: Is it possible that Matthew 1.17 is describing a geneaology that might not be exactly and literally historically accurate?

What in the genealogy is not accurate? The numbers? The patriarchs? The count, The order?

Does the precise historical accuracy matter to the God breathed 14+14+14 revelation?

I cannot check that history. It was before my time. But I do believe that 14 is 14, or that 14 is 7+7 that is like 77? I do believe the overall message that is founded in the Creation and structure with scripture.
Do you believe that Joseph did not foretell 77 77 77 or 14 14 14?
Do you bot believe any of the numbers from the Bible that I listed in Ref53?

There is one thing though. The revelation of Daniel is about 77 months of evenings and mornings. This is interpreted to be 77 months because the count of evenings and mornings on the seventh day of the Creation is exactly 77, as well as other observations of the same number that mean the same thing. You can disagree with me if you want, but if you do, you should be able to prove that. But not the other numbers.

If this is the right post it is almost number (4 pi)^2+e^3+1

Ooo. I can get a 5, 6, 7 and 8 in there if it's

(4*pi)^2+e^3+1^5+1/(6*7*8)

I cannot check that history. It was before my time.

Sheeeeet, you couldn't make this stuff up. Priceless.

Ref 176: I think that any approach to scriptures that insists on its exclusive and special rightness based on an overly literal interpretation that selects and drives specific texts out of contexts is misguided.

I agree with you 100%. The only worthwhile interpretation of scripture must be in context with the foundational Creation's reason and numbers, Without this insight there can only be speculation. Without this context there is only speculative heiferdung.

From heiferdung to batshit...

#178: But I do believe that 14 is 14, or that 14 is 7+7 that is like 77?

With my mathematical training, I've never seen anything real that depended on the base. If you count on your fingers, that is base 8, 14 = '16' (base 8) = '7'+'7' which is "like" in your words '77' which is 63. The Babylonians used base 60; so 14 = 'D' which is like 'D' (base 60). 77 is '1H', which is nothing like 'D'. (Using A-Z for 10 through 36, naturally.) The Inuit use base 20; again 14 = 'D' and 77 = '3H', again no similarity.

(I don't recall seeing 60 and 360 being used as round numbers in the Bible much; I suppose the Babylonians didn't have that much influence pre-Exile, and either I'm not familiar enough with the post-Exile books or the authors specifically avoided such Babylonian influences.)

What is the significance to God breathed numbers if the creation is found to be other than 7 days?

>182 jwfarq:
JW, you do not agree with me anywhere close to 100%.

>178 jwfarq:
My question was not whether or not you could verify the historicity of the geneaology, but if your theology of God breathed numbers is dependent on the strict literal historical accuracy of Mt 1.17.

You had initially grounded your system on EVEning being associated with Eve. But as it turned out, that etymological association was not critical to the validity of your system.

Is the historical correctness of the Matthean genealogy critical to your system of God breathed numbers?

>178 jwfarq:
Do you bot believe any of the numbers from the Bible that I listed in Ref53?

I am not sure what you specifically mean by asking if I believe any of the numbers, but I will answer that I do not believe what you are insisting, that the numbers reveal "God's hidden message to humans."

A quick review on your litany of numbers in >53 jwfarq: shows some stretching, some contriving, and some use of textually questionable numbers.

What happens to your system if Revelation 13.18 actually should read 616 instead of 666?

I don't really want to play devil's advocate for batshit, but I think that question may be like saying: "What happens to your mathematics if pi is actually 3?" The answer is "Nothing. It isn't. It can't be."

The reason why many of these numerical fantasies seem to work out is not that God put them in the Bible, but the many of the human writers of the biblical texts seem to have thought this way. The comparison with church architecture occurred to me: if you discover that the sun shines straight up the nave of a church to light the altar on the Feast of the Annunciation, it's not a mystical message from God about the Incarnation: it's a careful contrivance on the part of the architect.

> 189 if you discover that the sun shines straight up the nave of a church to light the altar on the Feast of the Annunciation, it's not a mystical message from God about the Incarnation: it's a careful contrivance on the part of the architect.

Well said. But while the architect might have been arranging stone to selectively admit solar light, scriptural author/redactors arranged words and numbers to selectively admit the light of understanding.

It's easy to dismiss the philologically uninformed and borderline-paranoid ravings of contemporary exegetes. But arithmology and isopsephy are real issues in the textual compositions of antiquity. An example of the responsible study of this sort of thing can be found in David Fideler's Jesus Christ, Sun of God.

Ref 185: What is the significance to God breathed numbers if the creation is found to be other than 7 days?

As an example to what you might mean:
What if the the Creation was 9 days instead of 7.
If this were the case, Lamech would probably have lived 999 years instead of 777.

The significance of 7 days in the Creation is that if it was anything other than 7, there would be no structural organization in scripture that reveals God's plan for humanity.
The significance of 7 days in the Creation is that if it was anything other than 7, then the numbers in my Ref 53 wouldn't work.

#189: I don't really want to play devil's advocate for batshit, but I think that question may be like saying: "What happens to your mathematics if pi is actually 3?" The answer is "Nothing. It isn't. It can't be."

But mathematicians aren't in denial when they say that. On the other hand, the earliest text for Revelation 13:18 does say 616, as do several others, and many scholars take it to be the correct original number.

Ref 187:
My question was not whether or not you could verify the historicity of the geneaology, but if your theology of God breathed numbers is dependent on the strict literal historical accuracy of Mt 1.17.

My theology of God breathed numbers is dependent on the numbers of the Creation—not Mat 1:17. The genealogy of Matthew 1:1 to 1:17 is dependent on the numbers of the Creation also. Therefore my theology of God breathed numbers is not dependent on the strict literal historical accuracy of Mt 1.17

You had initially grounded your system on EVEning being associated with Eve.

No I did not ground my (God’s) system solely on EVEning.

But as it turned out, that etymological association was not critical to the validity of your system.

My (the Creation’s) system is grounded on EVEning, Morning, and Day being the God of Creation (the God of Time) who introduced Himself as a 3-way pathway to Himself for each of three human attributes, not once, but six times for each of six human natures.

Is the historical correctness of the Matthean genealogy critical to your system of God breathed numbers?

There is historical correctness in the Matthew genealogy that strictly follows the systematic structure that emanates from the Creation. The numbers of patriarchs (40) and the number of generations (42) perfectly follow the Creation’s systematic structure, so that there can be no literal historical inaccuracy, because the numbers are honored before and beyond the thinking of humans.

Matthew 1 begins the New Testament and 40 is the number of fulfillment that immediately proclaims that the Son of Man fulfills the Old Testament. The number 42 represents 3 sets of 77 that perfectly repeats the 77 Face of God counted on the 7th day for evening, morning and day. Jesus is the incarnation of the Face of God.

Ref 192: On the other hand, the earliest text for Revelation 13:18 does say 616, as do several others, and many scholars take it to be the correct original number.

616 is wrong for many reason, some which I list below.

1. 616 is not supported by the foundational Creation that specifies the mark of humans (beast) when evening, morning, and day is 666 on the sixth day
2. Unlike 666, 616 is not repeated in the Bible like 666 is. There are 4 calculations that support 666, including Solomon’s 666 annual talents.
3. 616 does not lead to the Creation’s next 777 (the number of salvation) like 666 does.
4. There are many other references to 18 (same as 6+6+6) that 616 does not do. For example Luke 17:2,3,4. Obviously 18 is also 6+6+6 like 666.
5. Many other examples too numerous to mention

I am not sure how those reasons cause the 616 to be wrong? Somebody might think your reasoning is a bit circular.

6 is just a 1 with a little zero attached to its bottom half. We all know that zero = 0 = nothing. Therefore, 111 is really exactly the same as 666 -- and so is 116, 166, 616 and 611.

Ref 195: I am not sure how those reasons cause the 616 to be wrong? Somebody might think your reasoning is a bit circular.

The four examples I gave you depend on non-circular reason and numbers that emanate one way from the Creation.

How is this for circular reasoning?
What I know, I know.
What you don't know, you don't know.

What I know, I know.

That is a fairly convincing argument.

As for me, I don't know what I know, and that's what keeps me thinking.

The problem is, we don't know what we don't know.

3 x 2 x 1 = 1 + 2 + 3

or consider the mysticism of subtraction: 7 - 7 - 7 = -7

Robert

Now this is an interesting topic to start back up, isn't it.

>130 richardbsmith:, 142
modalursine,
I found the book I had tried to remember in comment 130. My garage is such a mess with books. I am in a major clean up mode, and found this. 101 Myths of the Bible, which I read some years ago. It is a stretch for many of the 101 myths, but I thought the connection made to the Egyptian creation myths were good.

Back in the day I had also read a little on Egyptian mythology. Anyway here are some of the correlations made in summary, between Genesis 1 and Egyptian mythology:

1.1 in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the earth was formless and void; and darkness covered the surface of the deep and a wind from God swept over the water

Epyptian mythology: Huh and Hauhet - unformed space, a shapeless bubble; Kuk and Kauket - darkness; Nun and Naunet - the primeval flood, the deep; Amen and Amenet - the wind

1.3 And God said Let there be light

Egyptian mythology: When you (Amen-Re) opened your eye to see with them and everybody became illuminated by means of the glances of your eye, when day had not yet come into being

1.6 And God said, Let there be an expanse between the waters above and below

Egyptian mythology: The creator caused a firmament to arise out of the primeval waters, out of Nun

1.9 And God said, Let the waters below be gathered into one place

Epyptian mythology: Shu is tying the land together for my father Atum and drawing together the Great flood for him. (The mythology of the origin of the Nile.)

These are a few of the correlations made. And they are interesting, though I do not know how much scholarly consensus surrounds the proposed relationship between the Genesis and Egyptian accounts as described in the book.

I do however think that the Genesis accounts are received traditions from the various cultures that were the background for the ancient Hebrews. And that would certainly include Egypt.

Ref 202 Genesis 1.1 in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the earth was formless and void; and darkness covered the surface of the deep and a wind from God swept over the water

Where does this version of scripture come from? What surface? What wind? According to the original words of the Creation, darkness was upon the FACE of the deep and the spirit of God moved upon the FACE of the waters. Following are several correct original versions:

ASV Genesis I:1-2. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Jewish TANAKH (1917) Genesis I; 1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters

Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Genesis I:1-2. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The name of the Face of God was not yet revealed during the first and second sentences. Instead before the face of the deep there was only darkness (chaos) and instead before the face of the waters there was only the spirit of God. But in the sixth sentence God’s Face is EVEning before darkness, and morning before the cleansing (baptismal) waters and the Light of Day.

ASV Genesis 1:5
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

If you think that I am mistaken about the correctness of scripture in the beginning sentences of the Bible, then I suggest you read how the numbers of Gematria (numbering system for the Hebrew alphabet) point to the original words of the Creation. http://www.biblemaths.com/pag04_lect/seven.pdf.

Why is this important? Beyond Religion is God of the Creation. It is written that to be forgiven by God you must seek and find the FACE OF GOD (2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27:6-9, Hosea 5!15). If you do not do this and find the same God who Jesus knew, you are dead in the water with only salvation illusion.

Welcome back.

>202 richardbsmith: Now this is an interesting topic to start back up, isn't it.

No, it isn't.

~8
" Could you make a stupider comment? Because my quota of stupid things to read is short today."

Help me out here, guys. This post has three flags attached to it, but it attacks no other poster. It says that a comment is stupid, not that the poster is stupid.

Just a part of my continuing quest to try to understand TOS and what the heck people think it means.

~203 "Why is this important? Beyond Religion is God of the Creation. It is written that to be forgiven by God you must seek and find the FACE OF GOD (2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27:6-9, Hosea 5!15). If you do not do this and find the same God who Jesus knew, you are dead in the water with only salvation illusion."

Dang. So you've met G-d? How is his looking today? Did that facial help those blotches he was developing?

When are they going to write up the book about you, since the only other guys I know who "met G-d face to face" were Abraham and Moses. Hence, you clearly should get your own book too. Anything less would be discrimination.

>203 jwfarq:: It takes a particular type of mania to object to the use of the word "surface" in place of the word "face". Take a look here: http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-2.htm and then come back and tell us why using the English word "face" is so important, given that the Hebrew word simply means "surface".

nathaniel,

But jwfarq quoted from several of the correct original versions.

>208 nathanielcampbell:" It takes a particular type of mania to object to the use of the word "surface" in place of the word "face". Take a look here: http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-2.htm and then come back and tell us why using the English word "face" is so important, given that the Hebrew word simply means "surface".

Yes I agree that I have a certain mania (passion) about the importance of the original Word of God when compared to the abomination of changes made by speculating worldly minded humans.

1. The example that you used represents changes in both the Hebrew language and English versions. It is corrupt.
2. One of the examples I used is from the Dead Sea Scrolls that existed before humans had a chance to corrupt the scripture of the Creation.
3. When searching the entire ASV Bible for the word “surface” there are no occurrences. When I search for the word “face” there are 40 matches in Genesis alone not to mention probably a 1000 more in the entire Bible. What this means is that the word “Surface” is OUT of CONTEXT with the language of the Bible.
4. In particular the Bible requires man to seek the FACE of GOD (2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27:6-9, Hosea 5:15). It is not written that one must seek the “surface” of God. That is a joke. And it is a joke that Satan has played on humans, when humans change the Bible to make it line up with worldly concepts. For it is a worldly concept that there is not a face on water but only a surface. Humans fail to see the spiritual creation of God as it is because they have been blinded on purpose.

Ow.

>209 richardbsmith:: That's right -- I keep forgetting that the Bible was originally written in English!

>210 jwfarq:: Alright, let's look at this more closely. At the following link, you will find all of the instances of the Hebrew word פְּנֵ֣י, which is used in Genesis 1:2 to refer to the "face / surface" of the deep: http://concordances.org/hebrew/penei_6440.htm

You will notice that even the KJV (ASV) does not always translate this word as "face":
Genesis 1:20: refers to "the open firmament"
Genesis 11:28: it is simply translated as "before" (newer translations use "in the presence of") -- cf. Genesis 25:18 and 27:30.
Genesis 18:16 and 19:28 simply uses it as the preposition "toward".
etc.

While it is true that the word also is used to mean "in the presence of" or "before the face of" the Lord (e.g. Genesis 19:13 and 27), it is clearly a word that has a variety of uses that depend on context.

If even the ASV translates the same word in different ways, who are you to declare it wrong?

2. One of the examples I used is from the Dead Sea Scrolls that existed before humans had a chance to corrupt the scripture of the Creation.

I find this particularly amusing, because, you know, there were no humans involved in the writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls. :rolleyes:

I don't know Hebrew, but looking at the grammatical explanations from the various links on the page you indicated, http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1-2.htm , and at some of the ways it was translated into ancient languages ( http://tanakh.info/gn1-2 )(1), it seems the word is indeed "face," but used in the sense of "surface." Like "face" in English—the face of a mountain, the egg is face-up, etc.—meanings were extended in various ways. For example, the same word is used to mean the flat of a sword, the flat back of a crocodile, etc. (See http://concordances.org/hebrew/6440.htm). To imagine the water had a "face" on it is… well, it's a tad pagan. One might as well imagine the deep was really Ginnungagap.(2)

---

1. Nathaniel you'll enjoy those. Note how Aquilla, ever the literalist, translates it as prosopon, although at least in this case he's not violating Greek, because prosopon also can mean surface. The less literal Septuagint, and the Old Latin, folllowing it and perhaps discouraging any pagan Greek from imagining God has a face, translates it just "over the deep." The Vulgate, however, in following the Hebrew in idiom strikes me as changing the meaning somewhat, as the LSJ doesn't find facies used so much in the sense of "surface," but rather of "form."

One rather suspects the Latin is at work in the KJV's "face." That, the fact that it's more poetic and, well, and the detail that, at least according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "surface" doesn't, er, surface until around 1610, a year before the KJV. :)

2. One of my six year-old son's favorite words.

I think this discussion is a good example of how Let's Talk Religion can spin transneptunian bonkers into, er, something else.

>215 timspalding:: Though perhaps such "pagan" personification isn't all that far off from prosopon!

In all seriousness, though, the Septuagint translates it with an adverb: καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύςου (and the darkness was above/upon the deep), indicating that what was important to those first-century BCE Alexandrian Jews was not the face-ness of the deep but the juxtapositional relationship between the darkness and the deep/abyss. As for the Latin: I agree that "facies" does seem a bit odd -- I might have gone with aequor (especially together with abyssi), or perhaps been reminded of Cicero's line vultus ac frons animi ianua. On the other hand, Lewis and Short does give us a line from Vergil to support facies with mons, which seems analogous: curvata in montis faciem circumstetit unda (Georgics 4.361).

Edited to add:: I've dug a bit more into "surface" in the OED, which finds its earliest uses in the late 16th century from the French. An apropos usage from 1609 (as you say, two years before the appearance of KJV): "The {Newfoundland} Bancke..are mountaines grounded in the depth of the waters, which are raised vp..neere to the vpper surface {Fr. surface} of the sea." The French goes back to the Latin superficies, a contraction of the adverb super and our favorite word facies (which means "face", just so jwfarq doesn't get confused), to mean the upper layer or surface (as opposed to facies as being deeper than superficial). This entire lesson in etymology is really just a lengthy way of establishing that there is no practical difference between using "surface" and "face", as they mean the same thing in this context.

And yes, the Vulgate "facies" is almost certainly the source of KJV's "face", just like "caritas" gives us "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13.

Which raises a question for our friend jwfarq: Do you find "love" to be an acceptable substitution for "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13 (e.g. "faith, hope, and love" instead of "faith, hope, charity")?

>216 nathanielcampbell:

Meh. I think prosopon's just idiom, and idiom isn't meaning. If I say something is vachement I mean it's cool. If I say it's "cow-ly!" I've added a bovine that wasn't really there before. As for Vergil, the fact that it's poetry makes it very suspect as a guide to normal Latin usage.

I have a theory. Perhaps "face" means "shape" to Romans and "surface" to Greeks because Romans have sharper, pointier noses. Yeah, I'm going with that. Damn, it looks like facies is related to fari, and thus to phêmi. Damn.

I'm glad you're reminded of Cicero's lines. It means I don't have to be. Man, I'm glad I stopped having to read him!

Madonna said that Rita Hayworth gave good face.

ETA
I wonder if Madonna was talking about prosopon or about panim?

I told y'all that this was an interesting topic to start back up.

Yeah, I can't abide that one in my head. I'm replacing it with:

There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet.

>212 nathanielcampbell:: That's right -- I keep forgetting that the Bible was originally written in English!

No Nathaniel. I said both Hebrew and English were changed. Here it is again:
1. The example that you used represents changes in both the Hebrew language and English versions. It is corrupt.

Now here is what you need to know. The same Hebrew word for "face" in Genesis 1:2 is the same Hebrew word used for "My Face" in the phrase "Seek My Face" for 2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27.8, and Hosea 5:15.

I used the web site that you referred to me in order to verify the usage of the Hebrew word for "face" that has been incorrectly translated to surface. The following is just a small sample.

Scripture , Strongs , translit , Hebrew , English

Genesis 1:2 , 6440 e , pə·nê , פְּנֵ֣י , the face (my face)

2 Chron 7:14 , 6440 e . p̄ā·nay , פָנַ֔י , my face

Psalm 27:8 , 6440 e . p̄ā·nay , פָנַ֔י , my face

Hosea 5:15 , 6440 e . p̄ā·nay , פָנַ֔י , my face

Humans have corrupted scripture by substituting "surface" for "Face" I stand my ground as God as my witness. You have been duped by Satan to miss the true God of the Bible.

Vogue. Vogue. Vogue. Vogue.

> 203. you are dead in the water with only salvation illusion.

Is it the face of the water that you are dead in?

I can accept that if you are dead in the surface of the water, you probably only have salvation illusion. But if you are deeper down than the surface, I think you have a better than average chance of being saved in truth.

Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade. But doth suffer a sea-change. Into something rich and strange. W. Shakespeare (aka The Earl of Oxford)

Tim,

I have it on good authority that Eliot stole that verse from Ezra Pound.

The original read:

There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a surface to meet the surfaces that you meet."

It's all been revealed to me now. "Bible" comes from the Greek word for "book", and the key concept here is God's face. So, the true revelation of God is to be found on Facebook!

I have it on good authority that Eliot stole that verse from Ezra Pound.

I believe the original line was:

To prepare a smile to meet the Nazis that you meet.

Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade. But doth suffer a sea-change. Into something rich and strange

you are dead in the water with only salvation illusion

A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
He passed the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
       Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

>226 nathanielcampbell:

But book comes from beech. So it's really a faceplant.

We ought to do an Eliot read.

Wasteland?

I used to know it very well. But meh.

How about Four Quartets?

Four Quartets, better choice.

>228 timspalding: Beeches don't grow in the Holy Land: it must be a facepalm.

>231 richardbsmith: Do you think T. S. Eliot might have had a premonition of LT Group discussions:

Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Will not stay still.

We are the hollow (wo)men
We are the stuffed (wo)men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass

This is the way the thread ends\
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Not with bangs but a wimple.

It does not look to be ended yet.

Maybe it is morphing into a Four Quartet read.

I do think though we need a like button.

At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.

Ref 213: Alright, let's look at this more closely. At the following link, you will find all of the instances of the Hebrew word פְּנֵ֣י, which is used in Genesis 1:2 to refer to the "face / surface" of the deep:

I quoted my passages from the ASV, but you did not use the ASV in your comparisons. Instead you used NAS (NASB, KJV, and NIV. The NAS or NASB is a modified corruption of the ASV – not the KJV. These Bibles are corrupt, although the KJV does not translate the Hebrew word (Strong’s 6440) improperly. To counter your deceptive comparison I added a PFD on line http://www.revelationofgenesis.org/pdf/face-of-God.pdf.

The PFD shows (3) older Bibles, the ASV, KJV, and 1917 TANAKH with zero corruption. Below are newer Bibles; NASB with 36% corruption, 2000 TANAKH with 64% corruption, and the NIV with 55% corruption.

While it is true that the word also is used to mean "in the presence of" or "before the face of" the Lord (e.g. Genesis 19:13 and 27), it is clearly a word that has a variety of uses that depend on context.

Nope. It is clearly a word that humans have managed to manipulate in order to suite their agenda of making the Bible worldly. Humans invent ways to translate (Strong’s 6440) to suite immediate scripture phasing (paraphrasing) instead of maintaining original correct context with the Creation and the Bible as a whole. “Seek My Face” in 2Chron 7:14, Psalm 27:8, and Hosea 5:15 is the same word in Genesis 1:2. Read it.

Ref 215: Genesis 1:2 was translated into ancient languages.

Thank you for making my point that face/face is the original and correct translation.
Gen 1:2 Samaritan (face/face) Judaism prior to Babylonian exile “Keepers of the Law”
Gen 1:2 Masoretic (face/face) The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown Masoretic Text identical (200BCE)
Gen 1:2 Targum Onkelos (face/face) Dates back to 35- 120 AD)
Gen 1:2 Peshitta (face/face) Translated in 2nd century (Syriac – Vulgate Arabic)

Ref 216; there is no practical difference between using "surface" and "face", as they mean the same thing in this context.

Nope You are dead wrong. Here is the definition from Free Online Dictionary
Surface: a. The outer or the topmost boundary of an object. b. A material layer constituting such a boundary.
Surface describes the material layer of a material object in the world. On the other hand “face” describes the front of the head of a living (or dead) person, or in the case of the Bible the face of a living spirit like the living God.
Face: a. The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear. b. A person
The Bible is a manual that communicates instruction for the spirit of Man to return to God. The best way to communicate to humans is face to face, not surface to surface.

Consider (if you have ability to think objectively if not spiritually) that in Gen 1:2 there was an unnamed face of God over the spirit of darkness and an unnamed face of God moving over the spiritual waters. These faces were before (between) God and darkness/ waters. Then in Gen 1:5 (6th sentence) these unnamed faces became evening (before darkness) and morning (before the waters of life) and before Day (Light and Eternal Father together). Then consider that EVEning furnished the flesh and blood and morning the cleansing water of the incarnation of the Face of God – Jesus Christ.

If even the ASV translates the same word in different ways,

It doesn’t. Above, it appears that you equate the ASV to the KJV as the same Bible. They are different bibles, worlds apart.

who are you to declare it wrong?

I am who I am.

>238 jwfarq:: Three things:

1. Nowhere have you ever provided any evidence for why the ASV (American or Authorized Standard Version, a 1901 update of the King James Version) should be considered more authoritative than any other English translation of the Bible, let alone any translation into other languages. So before we continue this conversation, we are going to need you to establish why the ASV is perfect while others are "corrupt" -- though so far, your reasoning amounts to declaring other translations corrupt because they use slightly different / less archaic translations for certain words. You say tomato, I say tomato, as the song goes. (Or perhaps more analogously, does your car have a trunk or a boot?)

2. It would seem that perhaps you claim the authority by which to determine which translation is perfect and which is corrupt as "I am who am". The only problem, of course, is that your quote is a corruption of the ASV's text of Exodus 3:14, which says, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM."

3. Did you even read the definition you provided for "face"? I will copy it again here: "Face: a. The surface of the front of the head ..."

>238 jwfarq: I echo Nathaniel on your assertion about "corrupt" translations of the bible. Older translations are not necessarily less "corrupt" than newer ones; indeed the newer ones are usually more accurate as their translators have access to better resources and tools.

>239 nathanielcampbell:, 240

Give up. You can't eat your way to the top of a well filled with Fruit Loops.

>241 timspalding:: Tim, it's not so much that I think I'll ever open a crack in the invincible ignorance of jw's ... unique, shall we say, perspective. Rather (and this is why I also tend to respond to quicksiva's equally ... unique ideas), I hope that should any poor soul not equipped to see the dross blunder upon these threads, they will hear the voices of reality speaking up to counter the delusions.

We probably should begin with a definition of corruption.

How does one establish that a translation is corrupt? What about a particular translation interpretation is corrupt?

And other than being who you are, jwfarq, what training do you have to base a determination that a translation is corrupt.

I think that you and I have a different understanding of the meaning of the word corrupt.

ETA,
Where is quicksiva, I think quicksiva and jwfarq should meet.

BTW,
Which scholar compiled the information for the pdf of corruptions? There did not seem to be any attribution to anyone in the link.

> 238. To counter your deceptive comparison I added a PFD on line

Is PFD a corruption of pdf?

Or are you talking about personal flotation devices? If so, one of those might be helpful if you were to write any more posts like # 238.

The F doesn't stand for flotation. It stands for face. You are 66.666% corrupt.

> 238 a word that humans have managed to manipulate

As opposed to those words that are completely free of any form of human use or influence. Such words are never spoken, never heard, never written, never read, and need not matter, cannot be. I float blissfully away in these words, leaving the dull earth behind, intoxicated with the divine sublimity of perfect nonsense.

Ref 238: Nowhere have you ever provided any evidence for why the ASV (American or Authorized Standard Version)

Whoops! I thought I put up a PDF comparing six Bibles. I just checked. It’s still there. Did you miss it? I know what the problem is. I called it a PFD instead of PDF.

Nowhere? I have written extensively about the corruption of Bibles in my books. What we have been talking about hardly even scratches the surface. Actually the NASB has always been my favorite as far as readability goes. But it is inconsistent with the translation of Strong’s 6440. If you want I can upload a few pages of sample Bible Criticism. But I don’t want to be accused of spamming.

Let’s see how Psalm 27:8,9 reads using the NASB’s translation of Strong’s 6440 of surface instead of face.

8. When You said, "Seek My face," my heart said to You, "Your face, O LORD, I shall seek."
9. Do not hide Your face from me,

8. When You said, "Seek My surface," my heart said to You, "Your surface, O LORD, I shall seek."
9. Do not hide Your surface from me,

Please answer this question from the invincible ignorance of jw's ... unique, shall we say, perspective. If you were to actually seek the face of God (er surface) where would you start? On the face of the Bible or the surface of the Bible or somewhere else?

I actually have not read any of your books.

In your books do you define what you mean as corrupted text. It seems to me a corrupted text is one that offers an interpretation different from yours.

Is the pdf of corrupted texts one of your own compilations? What have scholars offered in the way of commentary as to your methods and conclusions?

>248 jwfarq:: I think I've diagnosed the problem. You seem to believe that the same English word should everywhere and always be used to translate the same Hebrew word. The problem, of course, is that Hebrew words and English words don't always share what linguists call the same "semantic field" -- that is, the range of meanings that a Hebrew word might have (such as the one you've labeled "Strong's 6440") don't always match up consistently with the range of meanings a similar English word might have. This means that sometimes, to get the correct meaning of a particular usage of the Hebrew word, one might have to use one of several different words in English.

Since I'm not a Hebrew scholar, I will offer an example from a language that I am an expert in. Latin has an adjective altus that can mean both "deep" and "high", depending on context (in essence, it means anything at a vastly different elevation from the point of view of the speaker). When it refers, for example, to the bottom of the ocean, we translate altus as "deep"; but when it refers to the top of a mountain, we translate altus as "high". This is because English doesn't have one single word that has the same range of meanings as the Latin altus.

This same phenomenon is found across all languages, for each language constructs the ranges of meanings of words in different ways. Thus, to come back to the Hebrew word we are discussing (פְּנֵ֣י and its variants, which you have designated "Strong's 6440" {Note: although the same consonants appear in the usages of Genesis 1:2, 2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27:8, and Hosea 5:15, the vowel markings are different}), let's look at the five other uses of it in Genesis that I mentioned in post 213 -- though this time, we'll use the vaunted ASV:

Genesis 1:20: translates Strong's 6440 as "open firmament" ("in the open firmament of heaven")
Genesis 11:28: translates Strong's 6440 as "before" ("And Haran died before his father Terah")
Genesis 25:18: translates Strong's 6440 as "over against" ("He abode over against all his brethren")
Genesis 18:16 ("and looked toward Sodom") and 19:28 ("and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah") simply use it as the preposition "toward".

So here we have five examples of Strong's 6440 taken from Genesis alone that the ASV does not translate as "face". Why? Well, it's because the general meaning of Strong's 6440 could best be understood as "that which is facing you". Sometimes, as when talking of God being that which is facing you, it is appropriate to translate this with the word "face" (as in Psalm 27; you will note that we are not suggesting that Strong's 6440 should everywhere and always be translated "surface", since you rightly point out that such a translation would be absurd in regards to Psalm 27). However, when it is used of places and things that are facing you, it makes more sense in English to say that you are looking "toward" Sodom rather than at "at the face of Sodom"; or even, when used of people, it makes more sense in English to say that Haran died "before" his father rather than "in the face of his father".

Thus, if we come back to Genesis 1:2: the various English translations that led to the formation of the KJV translated it "the face of the deep" because at the time (1500's), that particular usage of Strong's 6440 matched the English usage of "face" (probably also, as noted above, under the influence of the Latin Vulgate use of "facies" in that verse); this usage was preserved in the ASV revision of 1901. However, some more recent translations have preferred "surface" (which, I will remind you, is etymologically related to "face" and has an overlapping range of meaning) because "the deep" is not a person like God, but rather the thing that is facing the darkness.

In the end, this is a fine example of getting all worked up over something that doesn't actually matter. The meaning of Genesis 1:2 is the same, regardless of whether you use "face" or "surface".

Let me put it this way: the following are two German and one French translations of Genesis 1:2:
1. Luther's translation of the Bible from 1545: es war finster auf der Tiefe ("it was dark upon the deep" -- i.e. Luther used the preposition auf ("upon"), but no face)
2. The Schlachter 1951 translation: und es lag Finsternis auf der Tiefe ("and there lay darkness upon the deep")
3. The Louis Segond bible (originally published in 1871, with a revised edition in 1910): il y avait des ténèbres à la surface de l'abîme ("and there was a darkness on the surface of the abyss")

You will note that the Germans have never used "face", primarily because the German words for face (Antlitz {"countenance"} and Angesicht {"face / expression"} are both used in Psalm 27:8-9) don't work to translate "on the face of the deep" -- to say auf dem Antlitz der Tiefe is not a natural expression in German. And then, when we turn to the authoritative pre-modern French translation, what do we find? Surface!

So if the ASV doesn't always translate Strong's 6440 as "face", and other languages don't even translate Strong's 6440 in Genesis 1:2 as "face", why is it such a problem to use the slightly different but still synonymous "surface" in English?

>250 nathanielcampbell:

That was a joy to read.

>251 timspalding:: Thank you!

Tim,

Have I suggested that you add a like button?

And >250 nathanielcampbell: was excellent. It made me wish that we got more deep into some discussions of a similar vein.

nathaniel,

Is your wife also on LT?

>253 richardbsmith:: No (and I just got yelled at for "LibraryThinging" instead of being cuddled up with her on the couch watching Jeopardy).

And rightfully so. Go cuddle.

>254 nathanielcampbell:

"What is marital injustice?"

And rightfully so. Go cuddle.

Tell her RichardBSmith told you to cuddle. But Tim Spalding disagrees. We could start a poll.

#250 was a very good post.

It just so happens that I am currently reading Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything by David Bellos. A fascinating book that I highly recommend. Nothing to do with religion, but as the title says, about the meaning of everything.

>258 rrp:: I read a good review of it a few weeks ago at Lapham's Quarterly and it's been added to my Amazon wishlist.

> 250

How dare you manipulate words, you human!

Ref 250: Unfortunately you seem not be able to see the forest, because of the tree, a small tree I might add. Although you have convinced yourself and others that it is OK to corrupt scripture with an English word change that is not only not needed, but is also not consistent with the rest of the Bible, there is a much bigger picture—understanding the Face of God that was introduced in the Creation. The change from face to surface further obscures this understanding. Unless you forgot, the title of this thread is “Beyond Religion Is The God of Creation.”

Please answer all of the following questions:

I believe the Creation is a spiritual creation of God, not the creation of a physical human. Do you agree? (yes or no)

I understand that you think it is OK to change the word “face” to “surface”. Please explain to me WHY it is necessary.

Please explain to me why the NASB did not be consistent and change “face” to “surface” in the following verses: Gen 4:14, 6:1, 6:7, 7:3, 7:23, 8:8

You never answered my question in Ref 248. Here it is again:
If you were to actually seek the face of God (er surface) where would you start? On the face of the Bible or the surface of the Bible or somewhere else?

> 261 Please answer all of the following questions:

Is that posed to yourself (at #248)? I suppose it's to Nathaniel.

No one expects the Fort Mill Inquisition!

Which side of the book is the face of the bible? What is on the opposite end of the bible?

Ref: 263 Which side of the book is the face of the bible? What is on the opposite end of the bible?

Answer: The Face of the Bible is the front (the face) (that which is before the rest of the Bible, where Genesis 1 is.

the opposite side is Revelation
18. I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
19. and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

I believe the Creation is a spiritual creation of God, not the creation of a physical human. Do you agree? (yes or no)

Neither.

I do however think that your question is quite curiously phrased.

As to it being necessary to change face to surface - it is not necessary. It is also not significant. Either word conveys the exact same image.

The wind blowing over the top layer of the water.

Everything else is image and metaphor. My guess is that most readers pick up on the imagery.

264: You didn't actually answer the question. Nice try at evasion though.

jwfarq,

Which side of the bible has the face, and what is on the opposite side?

Ok, so Genesis is the face of the bible.

Revelation is the opposite end. Is that a butt or a foot?

Or maybe the back of the head?

Maybe the Bible is two-faced, i.e. Genesis and Matthew.

Ref 269: Maybe the Bible is two-faced, i.e. Genesis and Matthew.

Yes! The Bible is two faced. The first face is Genesis 1 when evening and morning are counted on the seventh day as 77 generations. This is the Face of God.
The second face is Matthew 1:1-17 where the Genealogy of the Son of Man is counted 77 77 77 generations as the Face of God.

However this information is supposed to be secret, because Daniel's Secret vision of 2300 evenings and mornings (like 77 months) was supposed to be withheld from humans until the End Times. Because that date has not yet here (but very soon this December) humans will reject this information because it is not yet God's time.

> 270. very soon this December

Will we all know it in January?

You did of course mean EVEning, right?

>270 jwfarq:: "However this information is supposed to be secret, because Daniel's Secret vision of 2300 evenings and mornings (like 77 months) was supposed to be withheld from humans until the End Times."

But both of these things (the genealogy in Matthew and the vision of Daniel) are found in the Bible. So why did God screw up and include these in the Bible if they're supposed to be a secret?

And shouldn't the second face of the Bible be the Gospel of John, since its first words (In the beginning) are the same as Genesis?

Ref 274: But both of these things (the genealogy in Matthew and the vision of Daniel) are found in the Bible. So why did God screw up and include these in the Bible if they're supposed to be a secret?

You didn't answer my 4 questions in ref 261. After you answer my questions in Ref 261, then I will answer this question and the next one.

nathaniel,

My guess is that John 1.1 should be a face and if Matthew's geneaology should be a face, then surely Luke's geneaology should be a face.

That makes the triune face I think.

We are still waiting, I suppose until December, whether Revelations is the butt, the foot or the back of the head.

It also is not clear whether the OT has its own separate other end, or if Revelations is the other end for the face in Genesis in addition to the three NT faces - Matthew, Luke and John.

I guess we ignore Mark wrt being a face?

>275 jwfarq:: I believe the Creation is a spiritual creation of God, not the creation of a physical human. Do you agree? (yes or no)

I'm not quite sure I understand this question. Do I believe that God created things spiritually? Yes. Do I also believe that God created things physically? Yes. Which aspect of creation is the most important in terms of reading Genesis? The spiritual. (Though this presumes a dualism that splits the spiritual and the physical, which we shouldn't rightly do, since we as creations of God are both spiritual and physical.

I understand that you think it is OK to change the word “face” to “surface”. Please explain to me WHY it is necessary.

It is not strictly necessary, but neither is it consequential. Likely, the translators felt that "surface" was a clearer articulation of the idea that the darkness was upon the waters; and since there is little difference between "face" and "surface", it doesn't actually matter which word you use. After all, the ASV itself doesn't always translate Strong's 6440 as face (I gave 5 examples in 250), nor is face often used in other language translations of the Bible (and the authoritative French translation even uses surface!).

Please explain to me why the NASB did not be consistent and change “face” to “surface” in the following verses: Gen 4:14, 6:1, 6:7, 7:3, 7:23, 8:8

First, I should say that I was not one of the translators of the NASB, so I can only conjecture as to why the translators made the decisions they did. That said, I can speak to something of the process translators go through, especially in making new or updated translations of the Bible into English. The phrases and rhythm of the KJV are an essential part of the English language; yet, the KJV was not always particularly accurate, nor is its language the easiest to understand because, well, language changes over the course of 400 years. So translators must be mindful of the fact that certain phrases and rhythms of the KJV are intertwined with our cultural heritage; but that their new translations are to serve the needs of people today, not those a century or four ago. So in each of the verses you pointed out, they may have retained "face" where "surface" would make as much sense (such as "surface of the ground" vs. "face of the ground" in Gen. 4:14) because of the historical resonances of such phrases; or they might have used "face" instead of "surface" because the text is talking about somebody's face. What you still don't seem to understand is that the meaning of Strong's 6440 doesn't always correspond to the meaning of the English word "face" (as in the 5 examples I gave in 250).

You never answered my question in Ref 248. Here it is again:
If you were to actually seek the face of God (er surface) where would you start? On the face of the Bible or the surface of the Bible or somewhere else?

First, I would never change the phrase "face of God" to "surface of God" because the God I know is a personal God who became a human being (Jesus), and so he has a face. The thing is, "the deep" in Genesis 1:2 isn't God -- it's the unformed matter from which he creates.

So where do I seek the face of God? God revealed himself throughout the history of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament; and he made his most special revelation of himself to us when his Son became a human being (Jesus). Because humans are created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed, recreated, and perfected in the Incarnation and Sacrifice of Christ, we can find God revealed within ourselves, both in our nature as the image of God and in the perfection of our nature through Jesus Christ and by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

So one could start seeking the face of God in the Bible; but one will only find the face of God when God graciously reveals himself through the power of the Holy Spirit and in the incarnation of his Son, "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

So now that I've humored you, would you kindly answer the following questions that you have left unanswered:

1. (From 250): So if the ASV doesn't always translate Strong's 6440 as "face", and other languages don't even translate Strong's 6440 in Genesis 1:2 as "face", why is it such a problem to use the slightly different but still synonymous "surface" in English?

2. (From 274): But both of these things (the genealogy in Matthew and the vision of Daniel) are found in the Bible. So why did God screw up and include these in the Bible if they're supposed to be a secret?

3. (From 274): And shouldn't the second face of the Bible be the Gospel of John, since its first words (In the beginning) are the same as Genesis?

>276 richardbsmith:: But we know that each of the evangelists has a face: Matthew is a man/angel, Mark is a lion, Luke is a bull, and John is an eagle.

~270

Love it !!! Did you say that you had written books of this stuff? Do you know about how Enoch predicts everything about the future? I know it is true, I had coffee with one of the Learned Elders a week ago and he revealed it to me.

Ref 277: Thank you for answering the questions.

275: Q: I believe the Creation is a spiritual creation of God,
Your answer is yes to this, and so we agree

Q: not the creation of a physical human. ,
Your answer is Do I also believe that God created things physically? Yes.

But I do not believe that Genesis I is a physical creation of man, since there was no man to till the earth until Genesis 2.
I do not believe that Genesis I is the physical creation of earth, since the earth was described as empty and void.
I do not believe that there was a physical evening and morning before Gen 1:14-16 the 4th day because it was only on the 4th day that lights were placed in the sky.

My point is that since Genesis I is a spiritual creation only, the word surface does not belong there. Isn’t it correct to describe an encounter with a spiritual entity as face to face rather than surface to surface?

Gen 2:5. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Q: I understand that you think it is OK to change the word “face” to “surface”. Please explain to me WHY it is necessary.
Your answer: It is not strictly necessary,
I agree and so does Richard agree.

Q: Please explain to me why the NASB did not be consistent and change “face” to “surface” in the following verses: Gen 4:14, 6:1, 6:7, 7:3, 7:23, 8:8
Your answer: First, I should say that I was not one of the translators of the NASB
Good answer Nathaniel. Neither was I there. If I were, I would have kicked their butts.
Here is a run down of the NASB partial surface/face corruption: for only the Book of Genesis

SURFACE
Gen 1:1 surface of the deep, surface of the waters
Gen 1:29 surface of all the earth
Gen 2:6 surface of the ground
Gen 7:18 surface of the water
Gen 8:9 surface of all the earth,
Gen 8:13 surface of the ground

FACE
Gen 3:19 sweat of your face
Gen 4:14 face of the ground, your face
Gen 6:1 face of the land
Gen 6:7 face of the land
Gen 7:3 face of all the earth
Gen 7:4 face of the land
Gen 7:23 face of the land
Gen 8:8 face of the land
Gen 11:4 face of the whole earth
Gen 11:8 face of the whole earth
Gen 11:9 face of the whole earth
Gen 32:20 I will see his face
Gen 32:30 I have seen God face to face
Gen 33:10 I see your face as one sees the face of God
Gen 41:56 face of the earth
Gen 43:3 You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you (*)
Gen 43:5 You will not see my face unless your brother is with you (*)
Gen 44:23 Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you will not see my face again (*)
Gen 44:26 we cannot see the man's face unless our youngest brother is with us (*)
Gen 46:30 I have seen your face
Gen 48:11 I never expected to see your face
Gen 50:1 his father's face

Note: The four marked (*) teach that forgiveness came after seeking the face of Joseph who portrays God.

Observation of the above inconsistency proves that the corruptors of God’s sacred Holy Word only desired to change the face to surface in the Creation and managed to change a few token examples afterward. They had an agenda. This is an abomination as I see it. I am a purest who has zero tolerance for this.

Q: If you were to actually seek the face of God (er surface) where would you start? On the face of the Bible or the surface of the Bible or somewhere else?

Answer; I would never change the phrase "face of God" to "surface of God"

Thank God for that!

So where do I seek the face of God? God revealed himself throughout the history of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament

I agree. See the phrase "Seek My Face" in 2 Chron 7:14, Psalm 27.8,9 and Hosea 5:15.. The caveat is you must be called by God first. Otherwise you will not recognize (see) the true face of God in the beginning. Although a few have been called, it is scheduled for a future date this year, just as Nebuchadnezzar found new reason after 12 months and 7 periods of time passed over him recorded 3 times in scripture.

So one could start seeking the face of God in the Bible; but one will only find the face of God when God graciously reveals himself through the power of the Holy Spirit and in the incarnation of his Son, "full of grace and truth

I agree

jwfarq,

You may be claiming agreement in areas that agreement does not in fact exist.

So why did God screw up and include these in the Bible if they're supposed to be a secret?

Ha! That is the best come-back to the fundie fascination with concealed prophecy yet.

You may be claiming agreement in areas that agreement does not in fact exist.'

Since I don't think there's a high level of actual respect for jwfarq's peculiar linguo-religious obsessions, wouldn't it be better to just say we agree and get on with it?

>282 timspalding: This whole thread is so bizarre that it's difficult to know how to react. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was on TV the other day and I'm reminded of the Infinite Improbability Drive.

I think this thread is a delight. So many people are absurd but pretend to be reasonable, then there are those few honest sorts who are absurd and don't even try to pretend.

Such frankness and forthrightness is truly refreshing - although I am somewhat hurt that he hasn't responded to my conversation with one of the Learned Elders of Zion. I would honestly like to know the numerical significance of the Truths imparted to me as Prophet.

Ref 284, 279: Sorry lawcon. I thought that your comment referred to the previous Ref 278 from Nathaniel. The ref 270 didn't register.

~270

Love it !!! Did you say that you had written books of this stuff?
Yes. This thread is an enactment of my last book, so far. However this thread is not organized. My first post was, though.

Do you know about how Enoch predicts everything about the future? I know it is true, I had coffee with one of the Learned Elders a week ago and he revealed it to me.

I have never read the Book of Enoch, and I don't know what a Learned Elder refers to.

We have gotten sidetracked multiple times in this topic.

We started out to discuss how Occam's Razon inspired the discovery of the simplest spiritual structures. All patterned after the number three, which might be understood as a manifestation of the triune God.

From >1 jwfarq:

Salvation’s path in its simplest form = man, Jesus, God
Man’s spiritual attributes in its simplest form = body, soul, spirit
God’s introduction in its simplest form = Evening, Morning, Day
Salvation’s path in its simplest form again = Evening for man’s body leads to darkness, unless man finds morning, who leads to Day (That Day).

The first Genesis creation account is a spiritual creation - but I do not think it has been explained yet exactly what is meant by a spiritual creation. I take it to mean spirits are created, but I think that is a corrupted understanding.

Anyway the entire Genesis first creation account is reveals a numerology around the number 6 and the number 7.

EVEning, Morning, and Day - there were 6 days of creation - 6 EVEnings, 6 mornings and 6 days which equal the number 666.

Adding the seventh day, the Sabbath, reveals the number of salvation 777.

The 666 and 777 patterns are then discovered to be throughout the biblical accounts, thus establishing their truth.

ETA
from >17 jwfarq:
Man is equated to (1) EVEning who leads to darkness unless man finds (2) Morning (the Bright Morning Star) who leads to the holy spirit of Light and (3) Day.

EVEning is written with EVE capitalized to point to the woman Eve who leads to darkness. I think I have that correct.

I am not clear about alot of things in this revelation of the most simple spiritual structures.

Ref 278: 276: But we know that each of the evangelists has a face: Matthew is a man/angel, Mark is a lion, Luke is a bull, and John is an eagle.

It appears that you are trying to tell me that God has four faces.
That’s why there are 4 gospels.
That is why there is a 4-way cross
That is why there is the 4-way God of Creation – EVEning, Morning, Light, and Day
That is why God introduced Himself to Moses 4-ways (3 times no less)
That is why the God of Israel is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph
That is why Jesus said thine is the kingdom, power, and glory, forever
That is why Jesus said to wait a fourth year for the fig tree with no fruit
That is why Jesus waited four days before raising Lazarus
That is why Jesus said wait four months to the harvest
That is why Paul wrote the breadth, length, height, and depth of God
That is why there is the Son, Daughter, Mother, and Father for the cross
That is why Paul said God is a family in heaven
That is why there are four faces of God
That is why there are NOT four surfaces of God

And the 4 winds - North, South, East, and West.

Plus the Pythagoras tetractys, you cannot forget that. It is God created.

I will say though that I missed the connection between 4 and the days of creation - I had thought EVEning, morning and day were built around the number 3.

You are saying the correct, non-corrupted, reading is that the days of creation are build around 4 - EVEning, morning, and day, plus light?

What does that do for the 666 and 777? Does it make the numbers 6666 and 7777?

>287 jwfarq: I could probably take any single digit number at random and find 15 correlations in the bible. Remember the old song, "There were five, five constipated men in the bible"?

It's the Erich von Daniken effect. Make up a theory, and then during the whole course of human history you'll certainly be able to find a few things which support that theory, especially if you ignore all the counter-evidence. In your case the fact that you only accept certain translations of the bible helps you to ignore things which don't fit. Chariots of the Gods rides again!

> There were five, five constipated men in the Bible

Excellent. Who are they?

There was Cain, he wasn't Abel (able)
There was Moses, he took the tablets
There was Solomon, he sat for forty years
There was Samson, he brought the house down
There was Balaam, he couldn't move his ass

Some authorities claim there was a sixth, Titus, whose name speaks for itself...

And what tune is that sung to?

Not a tune that I recognise from anywhere else, and to be honest not a very tuneful one either. You can probably Google it or find it on YouTube or somewhere. You need to be in a crowded bar (or rugby club) with a few pints inside you to appreciate it properly. This is not one of the songs you sing early in the evening when people still have any of their wits about them. It goes down better later on when they are past caring, around the time that Jesus would have changed the water into wine after the punters had already finished the first shipment.

There were five, five constipated men in the bible, in the bible.
There were five, five constipated men in the B-I-B-L-E.

The first, first constipated man was was Cain, he wasn't Abel (x2)

etc, ad nauseam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2mVR8aUzDA

If you can add Titus, then we have reached the spiritual number of six, and I think added more confirmation of the truth of jwfarq's revelation.

#205
John, I am at a loss to understand the reason you do not think this is an interesting discussion

While on the subject of numerology and songs, there are slightly more upmarket songs such as "Green Grow the Rushes-Oh" and "The Twelve Days of Christmas" which mix Christian and pagan symbols. Incidentally there are also rugby song versions of both of those. "And my Lord Montague of Beaulieu".

>294 richardbsmith: Thanks for that link, Richard. I see they substitute Noah (who nearly filled the ark) for Samson, and they add one constipated woman, Eve (who passed the apple). Never heard those two before. As you can see, the tune isn't up to much.

So we are at 6 or 7, depending on whether we add Eve or not. Of course if we add Eve to the count, we can bring in the connection with EVEning.

297: Why not have Noah, Sampson, and Eve and bring the number up to eight? I'm sure eight is a magic number somewhere.

The problem is we get 8 if we take the original 5 plus Titus plus Noah plus Eve. But then 8 is 3+3+2, 3+3=6 and if you take 2 sixes you get 66, so maybe that's OK?

>298 StormRaven: StormRaven, you were ahead of me there!

Eve wasn't a constipated man, was she?

>301 paradoxosalpha: So we can't make 8. Must only be 7 in one category and 1 in the other. But 7 minus 1 = 6, so once again we're back to the magic and very significant number 6. Well spotted, paradoxosalpha!

Ref 288: And the 4 winds - North, South, East, and West.

Plus the Pythagoras tetractys, you cannot forget that. It is God created.

I agree with your two accounts of four. There are many more. This is about understanding. The parable of the sower is about understanding.
That is why there are four tenets in Jesus’ parable of the sower

I will say though that I missed the connection between 4 and the days of creation - I had thought EVEning, morning and day were built around the number 3.

You are saying the correct, non-corrupted, reading is that the days of creation are build around 4 - EVEning, morning, and day, plus light?

The God of the Bible is different from other gods in that the God of the Bible is eternal.
Time in its simplest form is:

Before, now, hereafter
Or
Past, present, future

In this format of time God introduced His image in terms of time:

EVEning, Morning, and Day

For the attributes of a human:

Body, soul, spirit

So that the human could be created in His image at the end of six days counted as:

666

A numbered trifecta as a pathway to the 4-way God of the cross

But still a 3-way path for salvation:

Man – Jesus – God

So there was EVEning for the body that leads to darkness, and morning for the soul who leads to Light in the spirit and the day—That DAY

Just as Jesus said I-AM 3-ways: the way – truth – Light
Just as Jesus said 3-births in the flesh, water, and spirit (the pathway)
Just as Jesus said to enter the kingdom of God (the 4th thing)

To understand how three is still 4 is to understand that God separated Light from darkness and called Her to Himself and named Her Day. In this way the 3-way path of God’s introduction (EVEning, morning, day) includes the fullness of God EVEning, Morning, and, Day, where Day includes both the Holy Sprit of Light and the Eternal Father together as DAY.

To understand that light is spiritual Light is to understand that the Creation is a spiritual creation – not physical

To understand that light is holy is to see that God called Her good. So then there was the Holy Spirit of Light

What does that do for the 666 and 777?
The pathway is still three and the numbers are correct.

Does it make the numbers 6666 and 7777?
No. But actually 6 hours + 6 hours + 6 hours + 6 hours (6666) is a 24 hour day.
And 7777 is 28 the menstrual cycle of a woman, where Joseph was 28 years when he prophesied 77 77 77 the Son of Man’s Genealogy.
And 14 days (77) is the fertile time when mortal life begins, just like 77 in the Creation for EVEning and morning on the 7th day, and just like the 77 signature (incarnation of Jesus) who begins spiritual life.

To understand why this is important is you can’t be saved by the wrong God, only the same God that Jesus knew.

The Ten Commandments include the last 6 for the 6 natures of man. That is why the Creation is 6 days (the 6 tenets of reason). However the first FOUR commandments are instructions for man to honor the FOUR attributes of God. At the bottom of the cross is EVEning for the flesh and blood of man. The commandment is You shall have no other Gods before me.
Guess what you have done with your mono-sexed Trinity.

I hope I made it clear enough for you, Richard. But I don’t take it personal if you don’t understand. It is part of God’s time-line.

There is not one here who understands that surface for face is an abomination.
I have had enough. Will some please red flag me so I can get out of here?

I will say though that I missed the connection between 4 and the days of creation - I had thought EVEning, morning and day were built around the number 3.

Don't you understand? The magic is whatever jwfarq says it is. After all, he's the only person who has figured out the hidden code that God accidentally left in the Bible that no one is supposed to know about.

Well jwfarq, you have not at all made it clear to me, this most simple of spiritual revelation which you have proclaimed has me totally lost.

That said, you do not need to be red flagged to get out of here.

I do think though that you are correct in that no one here understands that surface for face is an abomination. Of course we had all been trying to understand how surface for face is a corruption and now you are telling us it is an abomination.

I have had enough. Will some please red flag me so I can get out of here?

You know, you are allowed to just stop posting.

> 303 There is not one here who understands that surface for face is an abomination.

I say synonym, you say abomination. Let's call the whole thing off!

Will some please red flag me so I can get out of here?

Ah, lusting for suicide by cop, eh? You should go read the TOS so you'll know how to violate them properly.

> 285. This thread is an enactment of my last book, so far. However this thread is not organized.

It certainly is organized -- in the form of "call and response", defined as "spontaneous verbal and non-verbal interaction between speaker and listener in which all of the statements ('calls') are punctuated by expressions ('responses') from the listener."

If you doubt the "non-verbal" part of the responses, I can assure you that they have been present.

> 296. they add one constipated woman

Women in the Bible are not constipated. Among many examples, Ruth went in the field of Boaz, Deborah promised Barak she would go with him, and Lot's wife turned around to look.

Ref 277: So now that I've humored you, would you kindly answer the following questions that you have left unanswered.

1. (From 250): So if the ASV doesn't always translate Strong's 6440 as "face", and other languages don't even translate Strong's 6440 in Genesis 1:2 as "face", why is it such a problem to use the slightly different but still synonymous "surface" in English? :

I did not say that the ASV was perfect, or that Strong’s Bible Word Reference was perfect. Humans have a predilection to translate Hebrew to English in order to enhance immediate scripture phrases, rather than maintain context with a foundational Creation that they don’t even understand.

2. (From 274): But both of these things (the genealogy in Matthew and the vision of Daniel) are found in the Bible. So why did God screw up and include these in the Bible if they're supposed to be a secret? :

God did not screw up. The genealogy in Matthew is not secret. But understanding the Creation and its numbers seem to be hidden from humans, because it seems God has sealed their eyes and covered their heads until His timeline is finished. The 14/14/14 or 77/77/77 numbers are there in plain sight for the generations of the Son of Man to begin the New Testament, just as the 77 evenings and mornings generations on the 7th day begins the Old Testament. Not only that, the 40 Patriarchs proclaim fulfillment of the Old Testament, where 40 is the number of fulfillment.

For Daniel’s Secret, however, it is written that the understanding of Daniel’s vision and its numbers was to be kept hidden from humans.
Dan 8:26 "The vision of the evenings and mornings Which has been told is true;
But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days in the future."
Dan 12:4: "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."


Like a thread on a bulletin board; many will go back and forth

The knowledge will increase is what I have been feeding you. However that day in the now near future has not yet arrived. According to the first four chapters of Daniel, King Nebuchadnezzar gains divine reason only after 7 periods of time pass over him (like 7 seals in Rev), and that time is coming. Only then will you be able to understand divine reason.

I received this email 2 days ago. It speaks to me about the human state of mind when it comes to understanding what is ahead of God’s timeline.

Isaiah 29: 9-11 Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless;
be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer.
The LORD has brought over you a deep sleep:
He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers).
For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.”
Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

I think it answers my question about the old testament and now you have enlightened me to the face of God with your book I think I may even understand(Beginning too).

3. (From 274): And shouldn't the second face of the Bible be the Gospel of John, since its first words (In the beginning) are the same as Genesis?

No. As previously described, Matthew belongs there. In John are most of the New Testament’s time prophetic numbers like:
7 of Jesus I AM statements, 7 cries on the cross, 7 witnesses to the Son of God, and 7 sign miracles that belong on the last (fourth) position of the cross. The New Testament begins with the genealogy of the Son of Man who came in the flesh and blood of EVEning positioned at the base of the cross

In the beginning was the Word as Jesus in the order of morning, and the Word was with God as the Son of the Holy Spirit of Light Mother and Eternal Father in the order of morning, and the Word was God together as evening, morning, and day.

Ok,Ok. Perhaps the substitution of surface for face is not as bad as an abomination. Maybe I was a bit harsh. Nevertheless, it is still corruption.

>310 jwfarq:: "I did not say that the ASV was perfect, or that Strong’s Bible Word Reference was perfect."

If the ASV and Strong's concordance aren't perfect, then how do we know that you aren't basing all of your conclusions on corruptions? You've told us that translations subsequent to the ASV are corrupt and that those prior to it also had problems (e.g. KJV); and now you tell us that the ASV on which you have staked your entire claim is itself imperfect. What if the ASV got one of these numbers wrong?

And what of translations into other languages? Or are non-English speaking Christians simply doomed never to be able to access God's mysteries because their Bibles don't translate Strong's 6440 correctly?

nathaniel

It seems shaky to me to base any really deep inquiry into how a word should be understand based on the translation associations given in Strong's. What do you think?

Most scholars I have encountered suggest the BDAG for Greek and the BDB for Hebrew if you are going to investigate word meanings at a very deep level.

>312 richardbsmith:: Since I'm not a biblical scholar, the only resources I have at hand are online -- and that means Strong's (which is, I believe, what forms one of the core databases for the textual tools I've been using in this discussion at biblos.com). I'm not beholden to it, but it appears that jwfarq is (like a lot of the "prophets" you'll find wandering around the Internet, including this Youtube hit informing us that the President's name, when misspelled and wrung through several Strong's washes, indicates him to be the devil), so I figured I go along with it for the sake of raising the more fundamental hermeneutic question.

(I've no formal training in OT or NT; but my formal training in ancient and medieval languages and literatures, historical theology, and textual transmission and editing leaves me well-equipped to discern when a textual tool like Strong's is being used appropriately and when it is being abused.)

Strong's is an excellent tool. I use it frequently but not for nuanced definition.

In the Brown Driver Briggs there are lengthy nuanced explanations of the meanings and uses of PANIM.

The section with על פני (PANIM with a preposition) it provides two nuanced meanings - a) the sense of in front of b) the sense of surface.

At any rate, it seems to me that if you are going to present yourself as having researched nuanced word useage you should first familiarize yourself with the language and with the better scholarly lexicons available.

Rather than pronounce judgment on translations from teams of studied scholars that their renderings are corrupt or abomination, and have your judgement based on nothing more than an unstudied reading of Strong's Concordance.

The entry in BDB on PANIM indicates, clearly at least to me, that the presence of the preposition changes the root meaning of the word into more of an indiomatic expression that is very appropriately translated "surface of."

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is an excellent Greek resource.

Ref 311: You've told us that translations subsequent to the ASV are corrupt and that those prior to it also had problems (e.g. KJV); and now you tell us that the ASV on which you have staked your entire claim is itself imperfect. What if the ASV got one of these numbers wrong?

Good question! But you spoke before as though the ASV and KJV are similar. They are not. The ASV is far more advanced than the KJV, but I have not staked my entire claim on it. What you are talking about here is interpretation and hermeneutics. I wrote a few pages on this about 4 years ago. Rather than copy and paste it here, I uploaded it for your review. In it you cannot only see my philosophy on these subjects, but also an example of what I call an abomination.

http://revelationofgenesis.org/pdf/HermeneuticConsiderations.pdf

And what of translations into other languages? Or are non-English speaking Christians simply doomed never to be able to access God's mysteries because their Bibles don't translate Strong's 6440 correctly?

The answer to this question is the presence of numbers in the Bible. They are independent from the languages of man. The words are structured around the numbers. They are there for a reason. My interpretation of the Bible does not depend on Strong’s numbers. My interpretation(s) are based entirely on the literal Word of God and God's Numbers together. I understand what the numbers mean. Any interpretation without knowledge of the numbers is human speculation. Inspiration alone does not cut it. Numbers don’t lie because they can’t. Numbers are the same in all languages and therefore are more reliable than words in language to language translations. Although the Strong's Concordance is a great tool that I refer to, the God Breathed Numbers in the Bible carry a 1000 times more weight than Strong's numbers.

By the way, I obtained and read Apocalyptic Spirituality. It is terrifying to think how all these great dedicated men of religion (including Joachim Of Fiore) missed the point.

>316 jwfarq:: You know, I was going to write a lengthy post defending jwfarq's numerological methods by using examples from historical theology -- e.g. Augustine's influential concept of the 7 ages of the world, or in fact Joachim of Fiore's intricate exegesis that follows correspondences and typologies throughout the Bible to elucidate an influential theory of the relationship between history and the Trinity.

I had recommended the Classics of Western Spirituality volume Apocalyptic Spirituality to him in the hopes that he would see the historical roots of his approach. Alas, his mania has left him blind, condemning the "great dedicated men of religion" to the dustbin of missed points.

jwfarq,

Most of this topic has been about word translations and spellings - face vs surface and EVEning. The conclusions that you presented on these translations are based on the English and even in English those conclusions are wrong.

Your numerology is entirely unconvincing on its own merits. Given that your conclusions about English translations is misguided, what basis does anyone have to take your numerology seriously, even if someone were of a nature to be impressed with numerology.

Ref: 317 Alas, his mania has left him blind, condemning the "great dedicated men of religion" to the dustbin of missed points.

Alas, I did not condemn them. I have great respect for who I called the "great dedicated men of religion". That is why I called them "great dedicated men of religion". I identify with them. I respect them for their faith in what they believed. Like me they passionately pursued the mystery of the Bible. However, their pursuit was limited by confinement of the religion that paid them to do this. When Savonarola made the church angry, the church imprisoned him, and under torture Savonarola confessed that he had invented his visions and prophecies. On May 23, 1498 he was condemned, hanged and burned in the main square of Florence.

For all their faith in religion, dedication, sacrifice, and time studying the Bible (time that they got paid for in the confines of religion), they all missed the true Trifecta in the Creation that leads to the 4-way God of the Cross beyond religion. They missed this key point.

And it seems that you too have missed this key point-- the title of this thread.

>316 jwfarq: jwfarq, I don't find your take on hermeneutics very persuasive, I'm afraid.

> 319. they all missed the true Trifecta in the Creation that leads to the 4-way God of the Cross beyond religion. They missed this key point.

What is the consequence for people who miss this key point? My guess is the great majority of humanity has missed this point -- probably 99.999999...% of everyone.

Apparently, to an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, missing the point means going to hell. Does that happen to people who miss the true Trifecta?

they all missed the true Trifecta

Who knew that salvation was announced by Dick Vitale?

Ref 320; jwfarq, I don't find your take on hermeneutics very persuasive, I'm afraid.

Thanks for reading it. I guess I should be afraid if it did not get the job done for God. It was basically a succinct mind dump. It takes a lot more words to tip toe around and develop each concept. I know that I am not a good writer. Case in point—this thread. My abrasive style is not persuasive. I had just started writing when I wrote that hermeneutics thing, an amateur, and still am. It probably comes off as being too authoritative, kind of like “in your face”. The result is “backlash effect”, just as it’s going in here. That style does not encourage acceptance of the content.

In any case I welcome criticism. How else can I learn from my mistakes? The information would probably be more acceptable if another writer presented the content in a pious evangelistic fashion, more compatible to a religious audience that would draw the reader in.

It is not the presentation. It is the content.

Ref 321: What is the consequence for people who miss this key point? My guess is the great majority of humanity has missed this point -- probably 99.999999...% of everyone.

Apparently, to an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, missing the point means going to hell. Does that happen to people who miss the true Trifecta?

Mr. Jburlinson, thanks for asking the best question so far. I almost just answered, yes. But that is probably too abrasive, since we are now dealing with a very sensitive topic to some. Therefore I must take a little time, before I answer this question in a hopefully non-abrasive manner. Believe it not. I must pray about it.

I'll just note for nathanielcampbell, johnthefireman, richardbsmith, and the other believers in the thread: from a nonbeliever's standpoint jwfarq's theology is crazy, but no crazier than mainstream theological pronunciations. Remember that when you think about quoting scripture, or really any kind of theological word salad to a nonbeliever and realize that it just makes you sound insane to them.

>326 StormRaven:: "any kind of theological word salad"

You must have a dim view of most philosophy, too. Such pitiful anti-intellectualism...

stormraven,

That thought had occurred to me, what this discussion might sound like to a non believer. But you are welcomed to join in our discussions nonetheless.

327: Philosophy is often useful and rooted in reality. Theology is minor league philosophy rooted in fairy tales. Theology is nothing but meaningless word salad with a heaping dressing of jargon to hide the fact that it is ruminations on nothing.

You're peddling astrology and calling people who point out that it is nonsense "anti-intellectual".

> 326. Remember that when you think that quoting scripture, or really any kind of theological word salad to a nonbeliever and realize that it just makes you sound insane to them.

You might be interested in some commentary on one of the diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) --

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is characterized by the frequent occurrence of at least four of the following behaviors: losing temper, arguing with adults, actively defying or refusing to comply with the requests or rules of adults, deliberately doing things that will annoy other people, blaming others for his or her own mistakes or misbehavior, being touchy or easily annoyed by others, being angry and resentful, or being spiteful or vindictive.

Negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness, resistance to directions, and unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers. Defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds.

Hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder).

330: You might want to consider that you're trying to sell the equivalent of crystal healing therapy before you start talking about the reaction you are getting to spouting that kind of bullshit.

Because that's what you're hawking: bullshit. Indistinguishable in any meaningful way from the bullshit that jwfarq is pushing. You're just upset that people are noticing that behind all the intentionally obscuring language, theology is an empty and meaningless drone of babble.

> 331. Now, now. Take a deep breath and count to ten.

332: You're in the same category as Sylvia Browne, Peter Popoff, and John Edward. Do you find their ruminations to be intellectual and worth taking seriously? I don't. Neither are yours.

>333 StormRaven: Never heard of any of them. Who are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Browne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff

>335 StormRaven: Might be useful if you were to tell us why you think it is relevant to refer to such people rather than just giving Wikipedia references. If I understand why you think they are relevant, I can decide whether it's worth my while using my very slow internet connection to hang around waiting for the Wikipedia pages to load.

Of course you and I have both heard of Jesus, without needing to look him up on Wikipedia.

> 333. You're in the same category as Sylvia Browne, Peter Popoff, and John Edward.

You're right. I forgot about name calling. Very common symptom.

> 330

Thomas Szasz once aptly called psychiatric nosology "a dictionary of defamations described as diagnoses."

Resort to ad hominem does not bolster your position.

> 338. Resort to ad hominem does not bolster your position.

Which position is that? My position on whether or not certain posters to this thread are insane?

When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained..... Mark Twain

>333 StormRaven:: It is an odd view of the world that heaps Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr in with television psychics and declares them of the same (little) intellectual worth.

(I wonder if Storm understands how much philosophy in fact owes to theologians, e.g. the fact that Derrida derived much of the impetus for his philosophy of language from a deep and intense interaction with Augustine and Duns Scotus.)

>324 richardbsmith: It is not the presentation. It is the content.

I've just had a look at the "content" of a chapter on hermeneutics by Raymond Brown (who I think is generally accepted as one of the great modern biblical exegetes) and Sandra Schneiders in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and I have to say it doesn't have much in common with jwfarq's thoughts on the matter.

Ref 321: What is the consequence for people who miss this key point? My guess is the great majority of humanity has missed this point -- probably 99.999999...% of everyone.

Apparently, to an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, missing the point means going to hell. Does that happen to people who miss the true Trifecta?

You are confronted with a life-changing decision. Is the biblical Creation’s Trifecta God of the 4-way cross God who Jesus knew, or is it a mono-sexed Trinity, not written in any Bible…..ever?

I cannot make that call for you, because it’s not mine to make. But there are these things that might help you.

Risk Assessment: Pascal’s wager states that one should wager as though God exists, because he or she has everything to gain and nothing to lose. (Pay attention Raven) Tell me then, why you don’t have everything to gain and nothing to lose, by choosing the God of Creation over your partial Trinity, since the God of Creation already includes your Trinity?

For the lover of philosophy (the Raven) I have this:

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, Ph,D., 1788-1860

If you have trouble understanding, I suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and review my posts. You will see that I have not compromised the literal word and numbers of God. Finally, if you still have trouble understanding, go to my Contact Page http://www.mark7publishing.com/contact.htm and request a free copy of Daniels Secret. Please identify yourself with your LT handle.

This offer will be there for 7 days only. King Nebuchadnezzar needed 7 periods of time to pass over him while eating NEW grass from the fields in order to gain divine reason marked in the Book of Daniel with 77 77 77.

I suspect that this offer of grace is for stormraven, but stormraven, I would like to borrow your copy when you are finished reading it.

The Raven - catchy name.

Ref 344: The offer is for all in this thread

Very generous.

343: All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, Ph,D., 1788-1860

Its a nice quote but it fails to note that enormous number of crazy ideas get to stage 1, are ridiculed, and are discarded, because they are crazy.

Your ideas fall into this category. If nothing else, the massive amounts of circular logic that you engage in when trying to support them demonstrates that.

"You will see that I have not compromised the literal word and numbers of God. "

Those of us who have no belief in an incorporeal, intelligent, and powerful personality who made everything there is according to his will, will naturally find it unlikely that you or anyone else is in actual possession of God's word.

Now it may very well be that the words, or the ideas behind the words, are valuable to us whatever their ultimate provenance; but I suppose that would be a position in need of demonstration or defense.

If one wanted to establish that the words in question are indeed the words of God (assuming would could agree on what is meant by that three letter combination, and what it means for words to be "of God" ) that too, it seems to me, would take some doing.

For those of us with no belief in God, and who take your sentence to be composed of ordinary English words with no special meanings (such as a "son" who needn't be younger than nor distinct from his father and so on) the default assumption would have to be that the words of imaginary or literary figures are those of their authors.

Naturally, that default contention could be overthrown by sufficient evidence, which would also have the happy side effect ( for those who are already believers) of providing evidence for the alleged author of life himself (or herself, or itself)

So: What do you in particular mean when you say "God" and when you say something is "the word of God"?

Who knows, perhaps when parsed and translated from the "Theologese" it will turn out to mean something quite unexceptionable.

As for evidence... have you any?

Ref 347: Your ideas fall into this category. If nothing else, the massive amounts of circular logic that you engage in when trying to support them demonstrates that.

Since you did not cite any specific example of my circular logic, I must do it for you.

From Wikipedia: Circular reasoning is often of the form: "a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true."

Let a = the Creation and b = the structure of scripture

The Creation is true because all scripture is structured by the Creation
All scripture is true because it is structured by the Creation
In this way the Bible consists of circular logic
In this way I engage in circular logic.
In this way you are correct, when you say I engage in circular logic.
Since you do not believe that the Bible is true, it is appropriate for you to call me crazy.

It is a fact that evening, morning, and day are counted 666 and 777 is an implied count in the Creation

Let a = 666 counted in the Creation and b = the 666 image of carbon based man

The 666 count in the Creation when man was created is true because the image of life on earth is based on 666 carbon.
The image of man based on 666 carbon is true because the six day count in the Creation when man was created is 666.
In this way the Bible does not consist of circular logic within itself because these scientific numbers are outside the Bible.
In this way I do not engage in circular logic.
In this way you are not correct, when you say I engage in circular logic.

Let a = 777 counted on the 7th day when God rested in heaven and b = the 777 image of nitrogen

The 777 count in the Creation when God rested in heaven is true because the image of nitrogen in atmospheric heaven is 777.
The image of 777 nitrogen in atmospheric heaven is true because the 777 count on the 7th day when God rested in heaven was 777.
In this way the Bible does not consist of circular logic within itself because these scientific numbers are outside the Bible.
In this way I do not engage in circular logic.

In this non-circular logic way God created heaven and earth (life on earth) as 777 and 666.

Ref 348: For those of you who have no belief in an incorporeal, intelligent, and powerful personality who made everything, please explain to me how these scientific numbers perfectly match heaven and earth 1000s of years before these numbers were known by humans.

jwfarq

None of your points are established.

Not 777, not 666, not the nitrogen in atmospheric heaven, not 666 carbon.

Why have we not yet discussed the significance of the number 86? This number is essential to understanding first principles.

The word Lord in Hebrew gives 86 as numerical value, just as the word Elohim: phe, aleph, he, giving 86 = 80+1+5.
So, it's clear that 86 is the number of God.

The numerical value of Hebrew word ELLVIE, meaning alleluia, and MLVI, meaning plenitude or abundance, gives each one 86.
All praise (86) to God (86)! To 86 is due all 86.

The number 86 is used once in the Bible.
There is only one God. There is only one 86.

In the NRSV seven numbers are multiple of 86, the sum of their occurrences giving 12.
12 tribes. 12 apostles. 12 days for two weeks of creation. (Why two weeks? Because God needed to create the male universe and the female universe before coupling them into the "known" universe.)

86 is the atomic number of Radon -- "a radioactive gaseous element formed by the disintegration of radium; the heaviest of the inert gasses." "Radioactive gaseous element" -- what a perfect definition of the spirit! All 86 to 86.

Radon is "considered a hazard to health." (CDC) You can say that again -- "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20.

Ref 350: None of your points are established.

Not 777, not 666, not the nitrogen in atmospheric heaven, not 666 carbon.

Counted on the sixth day of the Creation there is 6 for evening, 6 for morning, and 6 for day that is 666 when man was created
The atomic image of the most common occurrence of carbon on earth is 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons. Carbon is the basic building block for all carbon based life on earth.

Counted on the seventh day of the Creation there is 7 for evening, 7 for morning, and 7 for day that is 777 when God rested in heaven
The atomic image of nitrogen in atmospheric heaven is 7 electrons, 7 neutrons, and 7 protons that is 777. Nitrogen comprises 77.7% of the atmosphere.

How many quarks are there in carbon?

Is EVEning connected with the neutron or with the proton?

The connection is that you dreamed it up.

Carbon is the basic building block for all carbon based life on earth.

So is oxygen, which makes up more of the human body (and other life forms) by mass than carbon. You haven't "found" a connection. You've made one up and gone looking for confirmatory trivia.

In this way I engage in circular logic.

You do realize that circular logic is a logical fallacy, don't you?

Try this: how do you support your contention that the Bible is true?

Ref 353-1: How many quarks are there in carbon?

There is only one Far-quarks --> JW

Ref 353-2: Is EVEning connected with the neutron or with the proton?

EVEning is for the Body (body-soul-spirit) where the body of man is carbon based (remember the carbon mother?) and carbon is 6 electrons, 6 neutrons, and 6 protons or just 666.

Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.

Ref 353-3: The connection is that you dreamed it up

The connection is that you are the 666 beast that does not have that connection to the understanding called for to calculate the number of the beast.

You are right about the dream, since I didn't figure it out. It came in a dream, like the vision of Daniel about EVEnings and mornings.

>356 jwfarq:: What's the difference between the good 666 (carbon and Body, which is apparently body-soul-spirit, which means Body is more than just body...) and the bad 666 (beast)?

There is only one Far-quarks

Do you even know what quarks are?

Ref 357: What's the difference between the good 666 (carbon and Body, which is apparently body-soul-spirit, which means Body is more than just body...) and the bad 666 (beast)?

This is a very good question. In my mind there really isn’t a good or bad. Instead it is just the incomplete number of a man-beast numbered in the Creation as 666. It is before salvation, where the salvation path is simply man-Jesus-God, in the image of God evening-morning-day, and the number for completion is 777.

When Jesus spoke of 666 He didn't use 666. Instead He used the number 18 like this:

Luke 13:4: Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?

Luke 13:11: And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all.

Luke 13:16” "And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?"

In Luke 13:4 Jesus explains that those 18 (666) were no worse than all in Jerusalem, which really was not too bad, except that He identified them with 666 as an incomplete number. The complete number is 777. Jesus even completes these three verses with the Sabbath, (7) where 666+7 = 25 the number He uses to cite the 25 truly, truly tenets for the Doctrine of the Kingdom of God. This Luke chapter finishes with the 3 year old fig tree that needs a 4th year with fertilizer, just like finishing with a 4-way God of the Cross.

Other times Jesus uses 180 measures to identify the 666 incompleteness of a human, which He terms good, since God created humans in that image. This is the fourth sowing from the Gospel of Thomas Saying 9:

And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop; it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.

Note that there were four sowings of seed; one for each attribute of God of the 4-way cross. Also note that this sowings parable appears in Matt, Mark and Luke with no consistency of numbers. Now I don't think that this is a corruption. Humans just did the best they could at the time.

Ref 358: Yes.

360: I doubt it, given your rambling ravings thus far.

According to School House Rock 3 is a magic number!

Ref 362: According to School House Rock 3 is a magic number!

And the Trifecta is kinda magic too with a big payoff, if you get it right.

Oh, ow, ow, ow. Can we shoot this thread in the head?

But what about circumcision?

ETA

With circumcision you have the FOURskin.

What about the woman who had bled for 12 years and the girl who was 12? Twelve is made up of 3, the Trinity, and the 4-way Cross

> 365

No, you've got it backwards. With circumcision, you lose the foreskin.

~364

Beginning to rethink the scope of TOS? This thread seems to be even a better counterexample than our Nazi. (In other words, "Yes, please shoot it in the head.")

lawecon,

A question came up on another topic about Mk 3.1-5 and the question of healing on the Sabbath.

Do you know of any halakhah or OT prohibition against healing on the Sabbath?

the other topic
http://www.librarything.com/topic/138830#3460892

~369

Quite the contrary, healing is explicitly allowed on the Sabbath, even if the acts involved (e.g., carrying) would otherwise violate the Sabbath. (Another thing the authors of the NT got wrong.)

I could give you internet references if Nathaniel and Tim would permit...........

Permission granted - either here or on the linked thread.

Another thing the authors of the NT got wrong.

So, your point is that a number of Jews writing in the first century "got wrong" their Judaism? And you're going to cite something in later rabbinic writings to justify this, right? (In the past context, you like to refer to these writings as "medieval," and emphasize how little they have to do with what Jews in fact might believe. I doubt that approach will be operative now.)

Pardon me, but what utter rot. Even contemporary Jews are divided on the question of healing on the Sabbath. Yes, they all hold that one can and should do what is necessary to save a life on the sabbath—although there is serious division over whether non-Jewish lives can be so saved—but "healing" is a much larger category of life. It includes regular non-time-sensitive healing of non-fatal medical problems. Jesus healed a blind man on the sabbath. The man wasn't dying. You will find lots of orthodox Jews today who wouldn't treat him, and ample support for this in Jewish legal texts.

Please. We've all been through this before. Stop wasting our time denying perfectly well-established facts.

> 367. No, you've got it backwards. With circumcision, you lose the foreskin.

Not at all. We don't lose it, we sell it. The $140-million foreskin

Both of you are missing the connection - FOURskin

This blogpost comments on the question of healing Sabbath prohibition from the perspective of work, healing as a profession.

http://apikorostalmud.blogspot.com/2005/08/shabbat-109-healing-and-shabbat.html

~372

It is amazing, Tim, how you jump from a wrong premise to defense of an indefensible doctrine. Now, Tim, we all know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't written by the Disciples of Jesus. Given the number of errors in them, they probably weren't written mostly by or at all by Jews. Yet you think that you can get away with just asserting that they were and then go off on one of your rants justifying other errors about Judaism embedded in your faith and scriptures.

To make it even more amusing, you cite to "Orthodox Jews" as Halachic authorities. Of course, if you knew anything about Jewish history, you would know that there were no Orthodox Jews before there were Reform Jews, and that ever since the Orthodox invented themselves, and declared themselves to be the True Jews preaching Judaism as given to Moses on Sinai, they have have become more and more and more stringent in their interpretations of the Law. But you obviously don't know that, Tim, because, as I have pointed out before, your whole knowledge about Judaism apparently comes from rightwing Orthodox sources (or, strangely enough, from the NT).

Sad, really sad, but expected.

But you know, Tim, two can play this game. Muslims and the Qur'an have a great deal to say about Jesus and the NT. And, of course, as we all know, the Qur'an was dictated from G-d by Gabriel, not the work of some anonymous first or second century compilers of legends. Mayhaps I should start quoting those sources every time a topic comes up about Christianity? I am sure there are relevant Haditha as well. Since those two collections are just sitting there gathering dust. Hmmm, this has great potential.

~375

This is just getting more and more ridiculous. The site you have pointed us to, Richard, is a Humanistic Judaism site. Humanistic Judaism has the same relationship to Judaism as extreme Unitarianism has to Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism http://www.shj.org/
The piece is intended to show how ridiculous the Law is (you can't even administer or take medical treatment on the Sabbath), and thus doesn't mind at all co-opting Christian Scriptures and their hostility to the Law.

Here is an extract from the online Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) regarding this topic:

"The technical term for suspensions of the Sabbath is "doḥin et ha-Shabbat" (push aside or set back the Sabbath). For a higher duty, that of observing the Sabbath was held in abeyance. A priest might violate the Sabbath in the discharge of his sacerdotal work at the altar, or while performing the sacrificial rite, or any other function, assigned to him. For "en Shabbat ba-miḳdash" the Sabbath law is not applicable to the service in the Temple (Pes. 65a). Acts necessary for the Passover are not affected by the prohibitions (Pes. vi. 1, 2). The blowing of the shofar is permitted (R. H. iv. 1). A Levite may tie a broken string on his instrument while performing in the Temple ('Er. x. 13). Circumcision also takes precedence of the Sabbath, though whatever preparations for this rite can be completed previously should not be left for the Sabbath (Shab. xviii. 3, xix. 1-3). But wheneverthere was danger to life, or where a Jewish woman was in the throes of childbirth, the Sabbath law was set aside (Shab. xviii. 3). In the case of one dangerously sick, whatever was ordered by a competent physician might be done regardless of the Sabbath; but it had to be done by pious and prominent Jews, not by non-Jews ("Yad," l.c. ii. 1-3). It was forbidden to delay in such a case, for it was intended that man should live by the Law, and not die through it (Yoma 85a, b; Sanh. 74a; 'Ab. Zarah 27b, 54a; Mek., Ki Tissa). Water might be heated and the lamps lighted. In accidents, too, every help might be extended. Some restrictions were placed on the choice of fluids to relieve toothache or of ointments to relieve pain in the loins (Shab. xiv. 4). A sprained member might not have cold water poured over it, but it might be bathed in the usual way (Shab. xxii. 6).

It was permissible to take animals to water, provided they carried no load ("Shibbole ha-Leḳeṭ," p. 74, where it is explained that covers necessary for the comfort of the animal are not considered a load). Water might be drawn into a trough so that an animal might go and drink of its own accord ('Er. 20b). If an animal has fallen into a well, it is provided with food until Sabbath is over, if this is possible; but if it is not, covers, cushions, and mattresses are placed under it so that it may get out without further aid; the pain of the animal is sufficient excuse ("ẓa'ar ba'ale ḥayyim") for this Sabbath violation. But the animal might not be drawn out by men, a precaution taken in those cases where animals had gone astray and had to be driven back into the courtyard ("Yad," l.c. xxv. 26; Shab. 128b; B. M. 32b; Ex. xxiii. 5).

In view of the spirit of philanthropy that, as Maimonides constantly asserts ("Yad," l.c. ii. 3), underlies the Law, it is difficult to understand the controversies with Jesus attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament. In Matt. xii. 1, Mark ii. 23, Luke vi. 1, the disciples plucked and rubbed the ears of corn and thus violated a rabbinical Sabbath ordinance ("Yad," l.c. viii. 3; Yer. Shab. 10a; Shab. x. 7). But the defense of Jesus assumes that the disciples were in danger of dying of starvation; he charges his critics with having neglected charity. This must imply that they had not provided the Sabbath meals for the poor (Peah viii. 7). Thus he answers their charge with another. For the act of his disciples there was some excuse; for their neglect to provide the Sabbath meals there was none."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12962-sabbath While this is over a hundred years after the rise of Orthodoxy it is still reasonably traditional vs what the Orthodox are requiring today, according to the well established principle of more frumish than thou.

An interesting comment from the Jewish Encyclopedia article cited in 377:

In the instance of the blind man whose sight was restored (John ix. 6) the important point is not the fact that Jesus broke the Sabbath law by kneading (Shab. xxiv. 3), for the provisions in regard to pain in the eyes ("Yad," l.c. xxi.; Yer. Shab. xiv.) have no bearing on this case; the point involved is rather the use of magic in the restoration of sight (comp. Shab. 67a; Sanh. 101a). In all cures effected by Jesus this was the matter at issue, not the incidental violation of the Sabbath, which might be justified on the ground that life was in danger.

>376 lawecon:

We can all find literally hundreds of web pages, let alone books, that are on "my side" of this. I know you have a special chip on your shoulder about "orthodox Jews" being a modern notion, but there is an enormous body of ancient to contemporary Jewish commentary on this issue, and it's really quite against your view. We're again in the realm of the silly outlier who claims he's the center.

Even the very authorities you cite are against you on this. As the Jewish Encyclopedia in the VERY ARTICLE YOU CITED points out, healing of people who aren't in danger of death is a violation of the sabbath:

Similarly, in case there was a sick person who was not in danger of death, and in whose behalf the Jew himself dared not violate the Sabbath, the non-Jew might be instructed to do the work ("Yad," l.c. ii. 10).

The Jew dares not break the Sabbath because life is not threatened. Get it? Do I need to find a hundred thousand other references, or can we just stick with the one you yourself cited, admit that you didn't read the whole article, and give it up?

I grant—never denied—that numerous exemptions exist. But when it comes to healing, the exemption requires something related to the risk of death. This provision has been interpreted widely, but it does not include normal medical treatment for non-life-threatening ailments.

which might be justified on the ground that life was in danger

Clearly not, as no life was in danger.

What do you think of this site?

http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html

From which source
http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_18.html

and an eye salve (see note 12) may be placed on the eye and a plaster on a wound and the process of healing continues all day. (see note 13)

note 13 - Healing on the Sabbath itself is forbidden, unless there is danger to life

The Jewish Annotated New Testament, a book you apparently own and even esteem. On John 5:9. Annotations are by Adele Reinhartz, a Jewish scholar:

The healing story becomes an account of conflict over Sabbath observance, in which carrying any object outside the domain of one's household was prohibited (Jer 17.21–22). According to later rabbinic law, the healing of an acute, life-threatening illness or condition was permitted, even mandated, on the Sabbath, but the healing of a chronic illness was not, on the grounds that treatment could just as easily take place before or after the Sabbath (see b. Yoma 84b). The Johannine passage suggest that this law was in place, at least in the eyes of some, in the first century.

As before, with rabbinic references to three-day periods after death, please tell me why you know more about this topic than Dr. Reinhartz. I shall be only too glad to queue up as many PhDs in this topic for you as you like. Better yet, I encourage you to change the text on Wikipedia (eg., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh) to state that healing in general may take place on the sabbath, not merely healing of life-threatening conditions. I'd love to see how fast it's removed.

Given the number of errors in them, they probably weren't written mostly by or at all by Jews

You will not find many scholars who agree with this. Most scholars believe that all of the four were written by Jews, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Luke. We could go down the line on this, again. But your highly idiosyncratic opinions are tiresomely predictable.

Wow.

Take a look at this page from the Talmud site that I linked.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/index.html#howdy

The Talmud comes to America, and our country is changing. Some people may be happy with the changes, some unhappy. Let's go direct to the Talmud to see how its laws will affect our lives and culture.1.America's New Government Church— Finally, a solution to doctrinal diversity. The rabbis have designed a one-size-fits-all religion for Gentiles: we bring you news of the Noahide Laws. Those who proclaim Jesus is their Savior will be put to death for idolatry. Congress has already begun putting the foundation in place.
Appendix: Why Christianity Makes Jews Uncomfortable See also: Israel's "One Indigenous Science" A detailed examination of one derivation of the Noahide laws; this one from the story of the Garden of Eden.

2.Sex with Children by Talmud Rules— Using young children for sex (including homosexual sex) is not forbidden by the Talmud Sages - provided the child is young enough. If older, they may defile the adult. Meanwhile, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a well-known Orthodox Jew, speaks out against pederasty.
Appendix: The Rights of the Child — Italian Case

3.Talmud Laws of Menstruation— A woman's menstruation is everybody's business: During her period, she defiles everyone and everything she touches. It is an offense for husband and wife to have intercourse during this time. Daughters of Israel insert testing rags into the vagina to confirm fitness for marital duty. Neighborhood Watch makes the system work.
Appendix: Niddah 14a Excerpt

4.Jewish Harems in Talmud Law— Though a medieval synod discouraged polygamy because it upset Christians, some still do it in Israel. The Word of God in the Talmud provides laws for handling a harem. Up to 48 wives are permitted, perhaps.
Appendix A: The Jewish Encyclopedia on Polygamy
Appendix B: Polygamy and the Slave Hagar

5.Really, Really Kosher Sex— Tips from the Talmud Sages help you improve your sex life. Things you never thought of …

6.Talmud Daughters Become Talmud Wives— Under Talmud law, the acquisition of a wife is much like the acquisition of any other property. Curiously, in 50 years of feminism, none of our Jewish feminists have made an issue of the sexual inequalities in the Talmud.

7.And So a Talmud Marriage Ends— The marriage belongs to the man. He may divorce his wife at will. To avoid paying a settlement, he can claim she has bad breath, moles, her breasts are too far apart, etc. The sidebar continues with the issues of modern feminism.

lawecon,

Take a look at this Come and Hear website. Have you heard of this group?

~383

Yept. I guess you don't know who Carol A.Valentine is? She emerged around the time of Waco with some of the nuttier claims - many thought at the time that she was a government plant to discredit those calling for a serious inquiry.

Probably the best way to think of Carol is as a somewhat later day Bella Dodd, one of the earliest defectors from the Soviet spy apparatus School of Darkness who, after milking all that she could from that background then went on to "discover" that communism was REALLY a Jewish Plot. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/wallstreets_utopian_... She subsequently authored such classics as The Talmud Exposed !! of which there are apparently no copies listed in Librarything (how soon we forget the classics).

Carol, however, is not a religious fanatic. She is just a self-proclaimed expert on many subjects.(Reminds one of some of the not to be named participants in these Librarything threads.) Her obsession, after being rejected by almost everyone who deplored the Waco episode, has been The Jews and their evil doctrines. If you bore more deeply into the site you've found you'll find many goodies. Or you can just go to the contemporary best sites for such "literature" http://ihr-store.com/ihrstore/index.php http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

I have an extensive library of this sort of stuff. If you are interested, I can go dig it out of storage and start posting titles. This should be of particular interest to those who think that the NT is a history book on late Second Temple Judaism written by Jews. The thought patterns are very similar.

I am very pleased to see that this site reprints the text of an Elizabeth Dilling classic. Dilling wrote many such masterpieces and has here own author's page here in Librarything http://www.librarything.com/author/dillingelizabeth

No I do not know who she is, but I will check her out today.

>383 richardbsmith: Is that website serious, or is it intended as a spoof?

~387

Well, it depends on what you mean "serious." It is seriously antisemitic. It is not serious as a Jewish information site, but some experts on Judaism from Librarything might like it !!

> 383. Up to 48 wives are permitted, perhaps.

48 must be a very special number. 4 is special -- the 4-way cross. 12 is special (for 12 reasons, which I needn't go into, but not least because it is 3 4's and 3 is special (trinity) and 4 is special, as explained in the previous sentence. So, 4 12's (=48) is special, in fact, very special.

At this point, it's clear that there is a hierarchy of special. What we need is a taxonomy of special; e.g., basic special, fundamental special, higher-order special, derived special, something like that.

Mathematicians have proved that there's no smallest uninteresting natural number, because there were, that property would make it interesting.

48 wives would be a management nightmare. King Solomon had 60 queens that is part of a 666 calculation.
The king had 6 steps to his throne, 60 queens, and 600 shekels for his soldiers. The total is 666,
Yikes!

And Let's Talk Religion now has 60 members.

It is a sign.

What happens when we gain or lose a member?

I just noticed this. We have had 9 new group pictures uploaded - a total of 42.

Now that is not close to Solomon's wives total - but it is 6x7!

Thanks to the new photos added.

~391

Indeed, jikes. The Number of The Beast. I guess Solomon must have several of his barbers killed, as ancient lore tells us was the case with Moses and Alexander. (Wait a minute, how did a Greek - well, Masadonian - get into this act??)

~392

That will be a sign too. G-d is consistently trying to speak to us, he just doesn't know English.

Mike Leigh's 1993 TV film "Naked", at about 9 minutes into part 5 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fdr6xlohas&feature=relmfu , continued in part 6 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlAWlz535vc&feature=relmfu contains the following, slightly edited, text:

"The party’s over. Take a look around you man, it’s all breaking up. Are you not familiar with the book of Revelations of St. John, the final book of the Bible prophesying the apocalypse? He forced everyone to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one shall be able to buy or sell unless he has the mark, which is the name of the beast, or the number of his name, and the number of the beast is 6-6-6. What can such a specific prophecy mean? What is the mark? Well the mark, Brian, is the barcode, the ubiquitous barcode that you’ll find on every bog roll and packet of johnnies and every poxy pork pie, and every fuckin’ barcode is divided into two parts by three markers, and those three markers are always represented by the number 6. 6-6-6! Now what does it say? No one shall be able to buy or sell without that mark. And now what they’re planning to do in order to eradicate all credit card fraud and in order to precipitate a totally cashless society, what they’re planning to do, what they’ve already tested on the American troops, they’re going to subcutaneously laser tattoo that mark onto your right hand, or onto your forehead. They’re going to replace plastic with flesh. Fact! In the same book of Revelations when the seven seals are broken open on the day of judgment and the seven angels blow the trumpets, when the third angel blows her bugle, wormwood will fall from the sky, wormwood will poison a third part of all the waters and a third part of all the land and many many many people will die! Now do you know what the Russian translation for wormwood is? Chernobyl! Fact. On August the 18th, 1999, the planets of our solar system are gonna line up into the shape of a cross. They’re gonna line up in the signs of Aquarius, Leo, Taurus, and Scorpio, which just happen to correspond to the four beasts of the apocalypse, as mentioned in the book of Daniel, another fuckin’ fact! Do you want me to go on? The end of the world is nigh, Brian, the game is up!"

I do not think the apocalypse will come until this topic is ended.