Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

Closed Thread
Page 77 of 117 FirstFirst ... 276773747576777879808187 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1162
  1. #761
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    Makes think of:

    God did cast truth to the ground.
    Rabbi Simon said, ?When the Holy One, blessed be He, came to create Adam, the ministering angels formed themselves into groups and parties, some of them saying, ?Let him be created,? whilst others urged, ?let him not be created.? Thus it is written, Love and Truth fought together, Righteousness and Peace combated each other (Ps. 85:11). Love said, ?Let him be created, because he will dispense acts of love;? Truth said, ?Let him not be created, because he is compounded of falsehood;? Righteousness said, ?Let him be created, because he will perform righteous deeds;? Peace said, ?Let him not be created, because he is full of strife.? What did the Holy One do? He took Truth and cast it to the ground.? (Genesis Rabbah, 8:5)
    Seems like a silly quote. You could just as well say that Love opposed the creation of Adam because his children would hate and kill each other (e.g. Cain and Abel), and Truth wanted him to be created because men would expose falsehood and express truth.

    This is why Rabbinical writings seem so silly to me. They're fine as stories and imaginations, but they really don't have much authority as far as I can tell.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #762
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Seems like a silly quote. You could just as well say that Love opposed the creation of Adam because his children would hate and kill each other (e.g. Cain and Abel), and Truth wanted him to be created because men would expose falsehood and express truth.

    This is why Rabbinical writings seem so silly to me. They're fine as stories and imaginations, but they really don't have much authority as far as I can tell.
    the Hebrew word for truth "emet" is related to "emunah"= belief

    in English "true"/ "truth" you can hear Dutch "trouw" = faithfull and "vertrouwen" = to trust

    Scientific truth is always doubtful, since something is only true until the contrary is proven.

    I do believe that what I found by chance might be or even is the ultimate truth
    Last edited by sylvius; 07-21-2019 at 12:26 PM.

  3. #763
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    the Hebrew word for truth "emet" is related to "emunah"= belief

    in English "true"/ "truth" you can hear Dutch "trouw" = faithfull and "vertrouwen" = to trust

    Scientific truth is always doubtful, since something is only true until the contrary is proven.

    I do believe that what I found by chance might be or even is the ultimate truth
    Those are good points about the relation between truth and belief. The online etymological dictionary says pretty much the same thing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Online Eytimological Dictionary
    truth (n.)

    Old English triew? (West Saxon), treow? (Mercian) "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant," from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith," from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast." With Germanic abstract noun suffix *-itho (see -th (2)).
    But I would say that not only "scientific truth" but rather almost all "truth" articulated by humans with language is doubtful. Are you suggesting that that you have some "absolute truth" that is beyond doubt?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #764
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post

    Scientific truth is always doubtful, since something is only true until the contrary is proven.
    famous example Exodus 17:7 expresses the people's disbelief/ lack of trust

    He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?


    next verse Exodus 17:8,
    Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim

    Rashi:
    He [God] juxtaposed this section to this verse, ["Is the Lord in our midst or not? "] implying: ?I am always among you, and [I am] always prepared for all your necessities, but you say, Is the Lord in our midst or not?? By your life, the dog will come and bite you, and you will cry out to Me, and [then] you will know where I am ?
    Gematria of Amalek is 240 same as of "safeik"= doubt ; "suppak" = to hesitate, to be in doubt.

    https://www.meaningfullife.com/doubt-silent-killer/

  5. #765
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post



    But I would say that not only "scientific truth" but rather almost all "truth" articulated by humans with language is doubtful. Are you suggesting that that you have some "absolute truth" that is beyond doubt?
    I am

  6. #766
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    famous example Exodus 17:7 expresses the people's disbelief/ lack of trust

    He named the place Massah [testing] and Meribah [quarreling] because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?


    next verse Exodus 17:8,
    Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim

    Rashi:

    Gematria of Amalek is 240 same as of "safeik"= doubt ; "suppak" = to hesitate, to be in doubt.

    https://www.meaningfullife.com/doubt-silent-killer/
    Interesting article. It makes some very doubtful claims about the "absolute truth" ...

    In the words of the Rebbe Yosef Yitzchak: ?The numerical value (gematria) of the Hebrew letters that spell Amalek (240) is equivalent to that of the letters that spell safek, ?doubt.? All things holy are certain and absolute. Torah is absolute, the mitzvot are absolute, divine providence is absolute. Amalek is doubt; baseless, irrational doubt that cools the fervor of holiness with nothing more than a cynical shrug.?
    I have some very good reasons to doubt the validity of those claims. Even the most famous Rabbis can't agree on meaning of the Torah. Don't you remember the famous saying "Where there are two Jews there are three opinions"?

    And what does it even mean to say that the Torah is "absolute" when it supposedly has "70 interpretations"? Here's a quote from the article Teaching the Seventy Faces of Torah:

    It is not unusual in a Tanakh class to encounter two conflicting interpretations. If we teach even two parshanim, we will inevitably present two conflicting readings. Each teacher has a choice about how to approach conflicting interpretations. Rather than seeking resolution, I choose to suspend my students between both readings. I actively encourage my students to refrain from siding with a particular commentary in my classroom and to consider what is compelling about each. I do not give my students steps to figure out which reading is right. I do not give them criteria for determining which interpretation of the textual ambiguity is better, be it textual criteria, moral criteria, or theological criteria.
    Where again was that "absolute truth"?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #767
    Desmild, I have a question for you. I've tried several times to read a little of your claimed code, and every time I do that I get a headache. Can you point me to a clear, understandable piece of your work, something I can read (hopefully without it precipitating a migraine) and say "now I see why he thinks he has a code"?

    I'm thebluetriangle, by the way. For some reason I can't post under my usual name.

    First you need to understand how God does his codes. So God connect things either you add words, verses or even letters.
    Now the reason I say I'm platinum now and not grandmaster is because I need more values of more words/phrases berfore I will claim that.
    I cant make sense of everything in the codes but lets say around 90%. But let's talk about the proof that is right in front of you, you will probobly not accept it since you ignored everything else I shared here putting yourself in the same position of Richard; claiming that you don't see any design.

    So number 1 is the first prime.
    - 5 "The" ה = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal"))
    - 7 = Pri(5 "The" ה = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal"))

    Now God can use either "The", or "Seal" or "The Seal" here. This is just a part of the riddle in how he does these codes.


    and here is some proof of that:
    - 5 ("Seal") first letters of Vs(1 "α") = 513 = 5 "The" --- 13 "Alpha" אלפא (red)
    - 5 "The" words letters of Vs(1 "α") = 1998 = 198 (Sum Pri up to number 37 "Seal") with extended digit
    - First 7 ("Seal") letters added of Genesis 1:1 = 915 = "The" 5 X 183 "Seven Seven Seven" (Heb ord)
    - 7 first words aka TV = 37X73 ---- 37+73 = 110 "Alpha" (Eng sta)
    - TV of Vs(5 "The" = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal")) = 2141 = 21 "of" (Eng ord) --- 41 "God" (Heb ord)
    - CW of Vs(5 "The") = 75 = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal") X Pytha.Pri-ord(137 "of God")
    - TV of Vs(7 ("Seal")) = 4541 = (Eng ord) "and" 19 X 239 "Crowned Seven Hundred Seventy and Seven" (Heb ord)
    - CW of Vs(7 ("The")) = 848 = 84 "Seal of God" (Heb ord) merged with its morror

    So I mean how can I take you guys serious when you just keep ignoring the truth ? I can't. It's impossible at this stage since I have shared so much here that it's not any question here if this is valid or not. It harmonizes to well to be random. And yes I can share so much more here but what is the point ? I can't get through to you anyways.

    Are you guys jealous that I figured this stuff out ? I can't understand how you keep ignoring the results.
    Last edited by Desmild; 07-21-2019 at 01:56 PM.

  8. #768
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    First you need to understand how God does his codes. So God connect things either you add words, verses or even letters.
    Now the reason I say I'm platinum now and not grandmaster is because I need more values of more words/phrases berfore I will claim that.
    I cant make sense of everything in the codes but lets say around 90%. But let's talk about the proof that is right in front of you, you will probobly not accept it since you ignored everything else I shared here putting yourself in the same position of Richard; claiming that you don't see any design.

    So number 1 is the first prime.
    - 5 "The" ה = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal"))
    - 7 = Pri(5 "The" ה = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal"))

    Now God can use either "The", or "Seal" or "The Seal" here. This is just a part of the riddle in how he does this codes.


    and here is some proof of that:
    - 5 ("Seal") first letters of Vs(1 "α") = 513 = 5 "The" --- 13 "Alpha" אלפא (red)
    - 5 "The" words letters of Vs(1 "α") = 1998 = 198 (Sum Pri up to number 37 "Seal") with extended digit
    - First 7 ("Seal") letters added of Genesis 1:1 = 915 = "The" 5 X 183 "Seven Seven Seven" (Heb ord)
    - 7 first words aka TV = 37X73 ---- 37+73 = 110 "Alpha" (Eng sta)
    - TV of Vs(5 "The" = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal")) = 2141 = 21 "of" (Eng ord) --- 41 "God" (Heb ord)
    - CW of Vs(5 "The") = 75 = Pytha.Pri-ord(37 "Seal") X Pytha.Pri-ord(137 "of God")
    - TV of Vs(7 ("Seal")) = 4541 = (Eng ord) "and" 19 X 239 "Crowned Seven Hundred Seventy and Seven" (Heb ord)
    - CW of Vs(7 ("The")) = 848 = 84 "Seal of God" (Heb ord) merged with its morror

    So I mean how can I take you guys serious when you just keep ignoring the truth ? I can't. It's impossible at this stage since I have shared so much here that it's not any question here is this is valid or not. It harmonizes to well to be random. And yes I can share so much more here but what is the point ? I can't get through to you anyways ??

    Are you guys jealous that I figured this stuff out ? I can't understand how you keep ignoring the results.
    Hey there Alex,

    Why do you continue to ignore the explanation I have given? Any child in kindergarten could "harmonize" things the way you do with any set of random numbers because you have created a ocean of random numbers for each word. Take for example the values you use for "alpha" (highlighted red). In previous posts you gave alpha many other values. I explained this in post 641:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    In Revelation 7:3
    - Verse order = 30 000 + 37 "Seal" + 777
    - Nr.W = 23 = Pri(10 "Alpha" (Gr red))
    - Nr.L = 107 "Treasure" (Eng ord) = Pri(29 "and" (Heb ord))
    - Nr.W + Nr.L = 130 "Inverse Alpha" (Eng ord)
    - TV = 16387 = "Riddles of" 27X(607 = Pri(112 "The Lord God") = ordinal of the 777 Holograph)
    = 207 "The Seal of God" (A=26 B=25 C=24) + 16180 (5 digits of Phi)
    - First word = 888 "Jesus" (Gr sta) = "Seal" 37 X 24 "Treasure" (Heb ord)
    - Last word = 1551 "God created the universe" (Eng sta) (151 "Jesus Christ" (A=1) = "The Universe" (A=26))
    - FLW = 2000 + Pri(86 "God") = 37 "Seal" + 777 + 1625 "seven hundred seventy and seven" (Heb sta)
    - CW = 911 "the beginning" (Heb sta) (91 = 13X7) = Pri(157 = Pri(38 "Alpha" (Eng ord)))
    - FLCW = 10X 335 (35 "The Seal of God" (Heb red))
    - W. surr. CW = 634 (6 "and" (Heb ord) --- 34 "Alpha" (Gr ord))
    - 4 CW = 1545 "In the beginning Universe" εν αρχηι Συμπαν
    This is an excellent example of why your code is so obviously absurd. In this one little section, you associated three different numbers with the word "Alpha"

    10 "Alpha" (Gr red)
    13 "Alpha" (Gr red)
    34 "Alpha" (Gr ord)
    38 "Alpha" (Eng ord)

    And here are few more of the values you used in this thread:

    110 = Alpha (Eng std)
    729 = Alpha (physics approximation)
    49 = "The Alpha" Ο Αλφα (Gr ord)
    532 = Alpha (Gr std)

    Etc., etc., etc. ... ad infinitum ... ad absurdum!

    Anyone could make up anything they want using your methods. They are obviously completely meaningless.

    You need to answer this point.

    Great chatting!



    Richard
    Look at all those random numbers you can choose from! And you do this for every word! This means that it would be almost impossible NOT to "harmonize" a random text just like you do.

    Why can't you understand this point?

    Why do you refuse to even answer this point?

    As long as you ignore this fact, why would anyone think that your patterns were anything but random?


    PS: I just noticed that you used two different values 10 and 13 for Alpha (Greek red). But when I calculate it I get A (1) + L (2 = 1 + 1) + Ph (3 = 2 + 1) + A (1) = 7

    How did you calculate it? I see you can get 10 from summing the digits of the Greek std value = 532 because 5 + 3 + 2 = 10. I thought maybe you were adding the reduced values of each letter before summing them but that gives you 7. So how did you get 13? Was that just a mistake?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #769
    That was not a mistake Richard, I knew that connection would get your attention.

    "Alpha" in Hebrew is: אלפא
    - red = 13 "One" אחד (See, it was all a riddle Richard, God knows how to connect)
    - ord = 31 "God" אל
    - sta = 112 "The Lord God" אלהים יהוה

    Just look at this. Here we have the Full name of God that = "Alpha".
    Riddle Riddle Richard
    Last edited by Desmild; 07-21-2019 at 02:13 PM.

  10. #770
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    That was not a mistake Richard, I knew that connection would get your attention.

    "Alpha" in Hebrew is: אלפא
    - red = 13 "One" אחד (See, it was all riddle Richard, God knows how to connect)
    - ord = 31 "God" אל
    - sta = 112 "The Lord God" אלהים יהוה

    Just look at this. Here we have the Full name of God that = "Alpha".
    Riddle Riddle Richard
    Ah, my mistake. I saw the Hebrew but thought of Greek because "alpha" is a Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew Aleph. It's really weird that you took a Hebrew transliteration of a Greek word derived from a Hebrew to go looking for "divine design." Looks like quite the whack-a-doodle stretch to me.

    In any case, your example proves my point, in spades. Using your methods, anyone could connect any random set of words and numbers they want. Your results are exactly what we would expect from a random set of words and numbers. Look at all the different numbers you use as references to the one word "Alpha" -

    10 = "Alpha" (Gr red)
    13 = "Alpha" (Heb red)
    31 = "Alpha" (Heb ord)
    34 = "Alpha" (Gr ord)
    38 = "Alpha" (Eng ord)
    49 = "The Alpha" Ο Αλφα (Gr ord)
    110 = Alpha (Eng std)
    112 = "Alpha" (Hebrew standard of Alpha transliterated from the Greek version of the Hebrew word)
    532 = Alpha (Gr std)
    729 = Alpha (physics approximation)

    And then you use those numbers as indexes of Triangles and Primes and composites etc., etc., etc. so it would be almost impossible to NOT find a connection in any random text.

    How do you answer this point?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Closed Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 24 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 24 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •