Translation of Bible opening sentence incorrect

[Riverwolf]

Me? but I thought I made it clear...

Hardly. I don't speak technobabble.

 

[DadBurnett]

Thoughts?

Trouw reports the “Opening sentence of the bible is incorrect” and a “New interpretation of original Hebrew Genesis text negates God as the creator”.

According to Professor Ellen van Wolde, God did not create heaven and earth. Instead he separated them.

Professor Van Wolde, an Old Testament scholar and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, said the standard interpretation of the opening sentence of the bible is no longer acceptable: “The traditional image of God the Creator is untenable. God did not create.”

The professor, who will present her thesis at the Radboud University in Nijmegen on Friday, re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole and of other creation stories from Mesapotamia. She eventually concluded the Hebrew verb bara does not mean to create but to spatially separate.
The Radboud University said the new interpretation is ‘No less than a disruption of the story of the creation as we know it’.

Professor Van Wolde said she understood her findings, which are soon to be published in a leading scientific magazine, will be devastating to traditional believers.

http://www.expatica.com

What makes this Professor'ss assertions,perceptions and conclusions more credible that that those of many other equally studied and credentialed Professors???

 

[Pure-Truth]

Hardly. I don't speak technobabble.

Cool, as that means you should be replying to S-Word, rather than me
As he is the one that mentioned the Big bang in the first place..

Pete..

 

[S-word]

Me? but I thought I made it clear, that the Big-Bang Theory violates conservation laws, and therefore deemed to be problematic, hence is not a reference one should refer to if one wishes to refer to facts..
Who are you addressing here? Me or to those who do subscribe to the flawed theory of a Big Bang?

but I thought I made it clear,
Yea, as clear as mud.

Who are you addressing here? Me or to those who do subscribe to the flawed theory of a Big Bang?
Why would I be refering to some 90% of the real scientist of today? To people such as Stephen Hawkins with his Big Bang/ string theory/ black Holes/ dark matter/ big crunch and the very real possibity of this universe being resurrected from the super Black Hole into which it is condensed back into the infinitrly dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, which had evolved to become all that was, all that is and all that will be.

Many of the ancients believed that this universe constanly oscillates between a body of visible physical matter to an invisible body of energy and back to matter again in an eternal process of evolution. Even men such as Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch, and was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD.

Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

 

[Pure-Truth]

but I thought I made it clear,
Yea, as clear as mud.

Who are you addressing here? Me or to those who do subscribe to the flawed theory of a Big Bang?
Why would I be referring to some 90% of the real scientist of today? To people such as Stephen Hawkins with his Big Bang/ string theory/ black Holes/ dark matter/ big crunch and the very real possibility of this universe being resurrected from the super Black Hole into which it is condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, which had evolved to become all that was, all that is and all that will be.

Many of the ancients believed that this universe constantly oscillates between a body of visible physical matter to an invisible body of energy and back to matter again in an eternal process of evolution. Even men such as Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch, and was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD.

Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were embedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

It doesn't matter what I, you and or anybody else claims, the facts remain, the Big-Bang Theory is Flawed and or still has problems, and even if we have 100% support for it, there will come a day when these flaws or problems will need to be fully addressed..

I have made reference to problems, and as such as long as The Big-Bang Theory hasn't fully resolved ALL the issues, it simply should NOT be considered or deemed as a valid model, no matter how many supporters exist for it thus far, I agree it appears to be our best model yet, but as long as a problem exists, it still is not 100% fact.

Instead of us getting into some argument, Maybe a read here may serve all of us better, but a word of warning, in not to be to hasty with what you read near the beginning, oh and feel free to google for further data, and please be mindful of who supplies the data.. Heres that link again Big-Bang problems.

Cheers,

Pete..

 

[Riverwolf]

Cool, as that means you should be replying to S-Word, rather than me
As he is the one that mentioned the Big bang in the first place..

Pete..

I fail to see what the Big Bang has to do with the opening sentence of Genesis, but I do accept the theory, and your refutation made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Therefore, you didn't make it clear at all that the Big Bang is false.

 

[S-word]

It doesn't matter what I, you and or anybody else claims, the facts remain, the Big-Bang Theory is Flawed and or still has problems, and even if we have 100% support for it, there will come a day when these flaws or problems will need to be fully addressed..

I have made reference to problems, and as such as long as The Big-Bang Theory hasn't fully resolved ALL the issues, it simply should NOT be considered or deemed as a valid model, no matter how many supporters exist for it thus far, I agree it appears to be our best model yet, but as long as a problem exists, it still is not 100% fact.

Instead of us getting into some argument, Maybe a read here may serve all of us better, but a word of warning, in not to be to hasty with what you read near the beginning, oh and feel free to google for further data, and please be mindful of who supplies the data.. Heres that link again Big-Bang problems.

Cheers,

Pete..

It was only on his death bed that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun centred model of the universe, Galileo Galilei who was constantly in conflict with the church authorities for skilfully arguing for Copernicus’ views finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the inquisition.


Of course Copernicus’ model was flawed, but it was the most accurate model around at that time, and the best minds of that era were prepared to stand up against those who would burn and destroy all records of Copernicus’ model, and people such as yourself who would urge everyone to steer clear of any reference to it, in the hope I suppose, that the subject might just die a natural death, but it didn’t.


Inquiring minds who rejected the advice of people such as yourself, rather than steering clear of the subject, ran with it and nurtured and cared for it as it grew into the universal model we have today which may still be flawed, but is the best model that we have to date, and it will continue to evolve as added data such as that which continues to be gathered by those, who reject the negativity of people such as yourself.

One day, as long as we have people like Professor Ellen van Wolde, who has shown that the Hebrew verb bara does not mean to create but to spatially separate; science and religion will eventually become one field of study. We will come to understand that the singularity of origin was spatially separated by the force of the Logos which is the animating principle that pervades all that is and is the life force to which all the information is gathered by the life-forms that the singularity becomes, and the Omega is the end result of the evolution of the Alpha in this Period of universal activity, which Alpha was the end result or Omega of the previous period of universal activity and the observer of the creation of this one.

At the close of this universal cycle, Krishna the eighth and principle manifestation of Vishnu, will enter into Brahman as the supreme personality of Godhead, and Brahman is the essential divine reality of the universe, the invisible and eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all returns only to blast forth in the creation of another universal cycle in the eternal process of evolution.

The root to the word Brahman originally meant “Speech,” although all the information that had been gathered to Brahman, is not expressed as the spoken word, but in the creation of the new heavens and the new earth after it has become formless and void.

The Logos who was in the beginning is the life in God, who the singularity of origin evolves into, and the Logos is God, from who all things are created, by whom all things have come into existence and for whom all things exist; and it was to the Logos that all the information of the universal cycle is gathered.

The Logos which has been translated as “Word,” which should correctly be translated as “All the gathered information that is waiting to be expressed.” But the information that was gathered to the Logos in the previous universal cycle, was not expressed as the spoken word, but in the re-incarnation or resurrection of that universal body, And “The Son of Man’ at the close of this cycle of activity is the one who enters into the Logos as the supreme person of Godhead.

In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was God and in him was life and that life was “The Light Of Man”.

I longed to hear someone express the words I couldn’t speak
Reveal to me the mysteries of life------- with all its secrets
So I sought the men of science who claim God’s body has no mind
They say the universe is growing but will die one day in time
So then the men of piousness, with them I sat me down
But they say God has no body those men in flowing gowns
Then finally in silent dream just me and ‘Who I Am”
We floated on life’s living stream with a pen held in my hand
Twas then the veil began to tear in this temple that is me
And there within the sanctuary, I saw the one that we will be........by S-word

 

[Pure-Truth]

It was only on his death bed that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun centred model of the universe, Galileo Galilei who was constantly in conflict with the church authorities for skilfully arguing for Copernicus’ views finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the inquisition.


Of course Copernicus’ model was flawed, but it was the most accurate model around at that time, and the best minds of that era were prepared to stand up against those who would burn and destroy all records of Copernicus’ model, and people such as yourself who would urge everyone to steer clear of any reference to it, in the hope I suppose, that the subject might just die a natural death, but it didn't.

what are you going on about? Why do I feel you have mixed and or mashed things up?
I agree, the basis for most of the Big-Bang theory is based on facts, and it is these facts that have prevailed, This is one of the reasons why the Big-Bang theory remains as our best Model, Flaws and all! And just because Copernicus's model was the basis for the current model, the fact remains it was wrong! ** NOTE ** my statement is based on your statement and what is implied, so I hope it makes better sense to you this way?

And just as The Big-Bang theory much like Copernicus's is on the money, I am merely pointing out there is more to consider, now tell me is that an action of someone who blindly follows the current trend? I would like to reason this is the actions of someone who has considered some of the flaws to the Big-Bang and come to a conclusion that indeed justifies A Big-Bang AKA "BB", but in doing so places the Big-Bang aka "BB" as an event that suggests existence before the "BB" now needs to be considered!..


Via - if one is to consider conservation of all the Raw energy for all the Universe, before and after ""BB", and or changes from a postulated primordial state to current state, what most over look is the energy in its entirety pre-existed the implied beginning event to imply The Universes beginning, what I am getting at is before the Big-bang, The Universe Indeed did exist.. unless of course nothing can become something, which violates energy laws having The Big-Bang also null and void..

Inquiring minds who rejected the advice of people such as yourself, rather than steering clear of the subject, ran with it and nurtured and cared for it as it grew into the universal model we have today which may still be flawed, but is the best model that we have to date, and it will continue to evolve as added data such as that which continues to be gathered by those, who reject the negativity of people such as yourself.

One day, as long as we have people like Professor Ellen van Wolde, who has shown that the Hebrew verb bara does not mean to create but to spatially separate; science and religion will eventually become one field of study. We will come to understand that the singularity of origin was spatially separated by the force of the Logos which is the animating principle that pervades all that is and is the life force to which all the information is gathered by the life-forms that the singularity becomes, and the Omega is the end result of the evolution of the Alpha in this Period of universal activity, which Alpha was the end result or Omega of the previous period of universal activity and the observer of the creation of this one.

At the close of this universal cycle, Krishna the eighth and principle manifestation of Vishnu, will enter into Brahman as the supreme personality of Godhead, and Brahman is the essential divine reality of the universe, the invisible and eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all returns only to blast forth in the creation of another universal cycle in the eternal process of evolution.

The root to the word Brahman originally meant “Speech,” although all the information that had been gathered to Brahman, is not expressed as the spoken word, but in the creation of the new heavens and the new earth after it has become formless and void.

The Logos who was in the beginning is the life in God, who the singularity of origin evolves into, and the Logos is God, from who all things are created, by whom all things have come into existence and for whom all things exist; and it was to the Logos that all the information of the universal cycle is gathered.

The Logos which has been translated as “Word,” which should correctly be translated as “All the gathered information that is waiting to be expressed.” But the information that was gathered to the Logos in the previous universal cycle, was not expressed as the spoken word, but in the re-incarnation or resurrection of that universal body, And “The Son of Man’ at the close of this cycle of activity is the one who enters into the Logos as the supreme person of Godhead.

In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was God and in him was life and that life was “The Light Of Man”.

I longed to hear someone express the words I couldn't’t speak
Reveal to me the mysteries of life------- with all its secrets
So I sought the men of science who claim God’s body has no mind
They say the universe is growing but will die one day in time
So then the men of piousness, with them I sat me down
But they say God has no body those men in flowing gowns
Then finally in silent dream just me and ‘Who I Am”
We floated on life’s living stream with a pen held in my hand
Twas then the veil began to tear in this temple that is me
And there within the sanctuary, I saw the one that we will be........by S-word

In closing, I will have you know, The Big-Bang theory will continue to exist, but at one stage all references to it being the beginning of all that is possible - will not exist, as the Big-Bang's reference to space-time violates the very laws that has all that is possible to being possible..

Consider the Universe as a Jigsaw puzzle and each piece is evidence and or a portion of all that is possible, take one piece away and all that is possible is not a valid statement until that piece is returned, likewise The Big-Bang Theory at this point in time is our best model, simply because we have a lot of the pieces of the Jigsaw puzzle, but with the very little pieces we have so far we may be getting the wrong representation of ALL of the Universe, and what I am implying here is I have mentioned some pieces that I am holding that fit with other pieces, which suggests The Big-Bang has much more to consider and when they are considered point to a Theory of Everything "TOE" where if we make reference to all the Energy as in 100% of it, we are in fact making reference to all that is possible as Closed system to all that simply is NOT possible.. I am making reference to energy and how it can NOT be created NOR Destroyed, having us with a model that suggests in this point in time of a Big-Bang! But the event is not a reference to the beginning but rather to an event.. Which BTW has the material I was making reference to completely WRONG - Having any reference based on this fiction also wrong!

Having said that I leave my suggestions up to those who are creating that new form of deception to be based on the Big-Bang, I leave that entirely up to them if they wish to choose what may one day be common knowledge to all man kind, having yet another revision, testament and or whatever having to be created should they choose not to heed my advice..
There is more that needs to be considered, but I wont reveal it here, as my agenda here is for truth to prevail!

2~Duh~Loo!

Pete..

 

[Pure-Truth]

I fail to see what the Big Bang has to do with the opening sentence of Genesis, but I do accept the theory, and your refutation made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Therefore, you didn't make it clear at all that the Big Bang is false.

I fully agree, it has nothing to do with beginning, ergo It is false, so it is not 100% fact, the fact remains it is a reference to an event that has the Universe pre-existing the event rather than as The Big-Bang as the beginning to all that is possible and or "The Universe"..

Agreed the "BB" has much support as being the beginning, but the facts are it is NOT!

I am sure I have already mentioned in another post here, if deception is to continue via some newly created religious text and or testament, I would like to point out - what is deemed as advanced Physics today may be basic physics later on, so if one is indeed attempting to create religious text that needs to deceive in the near future, and I stress the NEAR future as the Internet has many more with instant access to much more Truth than ever before!

So I reason, soon everyone may understand Advanced Physics as one understands basic physics now.. this is going to be a huge problem if any religious deception is to continue with any credibility, as it needs to deceive those who are working with advanced physics rather than just the basics..

2~Duh~loo!

Pete <hits {Submit Reply} with a smug grin on his face knowing all to well, religious deception doesnt stand a chance>..

 

[Riverwolf]

I fully agree, it has nothing to do with beginning, ergo It is false, so it is not 100% fact, the fact remains it is a reference to an event that has the Universe pre-existing the event rather than as The Big-Bang as the beginning to all that is possible and or "The Universe"..

Agreed the "BB" has much support as being the beginning, but the facts are it is NOT!

I am sure I have already mentioned in another post here, if deception is to continue via some newly created religious text and or testament, I would like to point out - what is deemed as advanced Physics today may be basic physics later on, so if one is indeed attempting to create religious text that needs to deceive in the near future, and I stress the NEAR future as the Internet has many more with instant access to much more Truth than ever before!

So I reason, soon everyone may understand Advanced Physics as one understands basic physics now.. this is going to be a huge problem if any religious deception is to continue with any credibility, as it needs to deceive those who are working with advanced physics rather than just the basics..

2~Duh~loo!

Pete <hits {Submit Reply} with a smug grin on his face knowing all to well, religious deception doesnt stand a chance>..

What in the world are you talking about? NO reputable scientist claims that the Big Bang is 100% factual. I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention "new" religious texts.

Not to mention it's obvious that physics that are considered advanced now will be basic in the future.

 

[Pure-Truth]

What in the world are you talking about? NO reputable scientist claims that the Big Bang is 100% factual.

Exactly! so why are you remarking to my posts as if I say other wise?

I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention "new" religious texts.

if that's the truth, then that is good news

Not to mention it's obvious that physics that are considered advanced now will be basic in the future.

Indeed..
2~Duh~Loo!

 

[S-word]

I fully agree, it has nothing to do with beginning, ergo It is false, so it is not 100% fact, the fact remains it is a reference to an event that has the Universe pre-existing the event rather than as The Big-Bang as the beginning to all that is possible and or "The Universe"..

Agreed the "BB" has much support as being the beginning, but the facts are it is NOT!

I am sure I have already mentioned in another post here, if deception is to continue via some newly created religious text and or testament, I would like to point out - what is deemed as advanced Physics today may be basic physics later on, so if one is indeed attempting to create religious text that needs to deceive in the near future, and I stress the NEAR future as the Internet has many more with instant access to much more Truth than ever before!

So I reason, soon everyone may understand Advanced Physics as one understands basic physics now.. this is going to be a huge problem if any religious deception is to continue with any credibility, as it needs to deceive those who are working with advanced physics rather than just the basics..

2~Duh~loo!

Pete <hits {Submit Reply} with a smug grin on his face knowing all to well, religious deception doesnt stand a chance>..

I am sitting before a computer and it had a beginning, it was not a computer before the metal was dug out of the earth, or before glass and plastic were created, or before the mind of man had evolved to the point where he could mine the metal, create Glass and plastic and had acquired the knowledge of how a computer should work and the necessary electronic skills to make it work etc.
When all the materials and all the required data had been gathered, and the creator of the computer applied his mind to its creation, we could then speak of its beginning.

Until more data is gathered, at this point in time, it is be impossible for us to glean what existed before the very first cycle of the expansion of time and space in this eternal oscillating universe, and it is there, at the very first Big bang that we conceive “The Beginning,” which each and every universal body is gathered back to, not to some new beginning, but to the original beginning when, from within their dark nuptial chamber, where they had been locked in their seemingly eternal embrace, Mother Space and Father Time, were first separated.

Here’s just a little trivia for your enjoyment. Osiris was born of the union of Space/Mut, and Time/Seb, and he was created from Nut (The primordial elements in Space/Mut, by Amen/soul (The Logos who is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body and all therein, or the universal life-force).

Budge---Book of the Dead, p. 627; “O Osiris, son of Nut/primeval matter, (Lord of Space and Time) I have given unto thee the sovereignty of thy Father Seb/Time, and the goddess Mut/Space, thy mother, who gave birth to the gods, bought you forth as the first born of five gods, and created thy beauties and fashioned thy members.

 

[Riverwolf]

Exactly! so why are you remarking to my posts as if I say other wise?

So you claim that because the Big Bang isn't 100% factual that it's not real?

The Big Bang is accepted by most scientists because it's what currently fits what we know about the universe. If you've got a better one, you should take it to the scientists, not us.

if that's the truth, then that is good news

What new "testaments" were you speaking of, anyway? Dianetics?

 

[Pure-Truth]

I am sitting before a computer and it had a beginning, it was not a computer before the metal was dug out of the earth, or before glass and plastic were created, or before the mind of man had evolved to the point where he could mine the metal, create Glass and plastic and had acquired the knowledge of how a computer should work and the necessary electronic skills to make it work etc.
When all the materials and all the required data had been gathered, and the creator of the computer applied his mind to its creation, we could then speak of its beginning.

Until more data is gathered, at this point in time, it is be impossible for us to glean what existed before the very first cycle of the expansion of time and space in this eternal oscillating universe, and it is there, at the very first Big bang that we conceive “The Beginning,” which each and every universal body is gathered back to, not to some new beginning, but to the original beginning when, from within their dark nuptial chamber, where they had been locked in their seemingly eternal embrace, Mother Space and Father Time, were first separated.

Here’s just a little trivia for your enjoyment. Osiris was born of the union of Space/Mut, and Time/Seb, and he was created from Nut (The primordial elements in Space/Mut, by Amen/soul (The Logos who is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body and all therein, or the universal life-force).

Budge---Book of the Dead, p. 627; “O Osiris, son of Nut/primeval matter, (Lord of Space and Time) I have given unto thee the sovereignty of thy Father Seb/Time, and the goddess Mut/Space, thy mother, who gave birth to the gods, bought you forth as the first born of five gods, and created thy beauties and fashioned thy members.

Cute, as is your TRIVIA but you are over looking the definition "The Universe" and what it implies.. As in, "All that is possible." is in fact still an inference to "The Universe" having all those who subscribe to the Big-Bang as being wrong!
ergo the fact that just because current data has the majority with a view of a Big-Bang, having them to resort to fiction, based on what fancies and or what suits them best as to what existed before the Big-Bang as in "catalyst/s", the point is and still remains all those events preceding to a PERCIEVED and or suggested Big-Bang the Universe never the less pre-existed.. because when I refer to all that is possible, I must consider, if a Big-Bang had eventuated, then a catalyst must be also considered, to which once this catalyst has been considered, I would have to move on to preceding events, so on and so on..

Ain't Maths Beautiful?

Cheers,

Pete..

 

[S-word]

Cute, as is your TRIVIA but you are over looking the definition "The Universe" and what it implies.. As in, "All that is possible." is in fact still an inference to "The Universe" having all those who subscribe to the Big-Bang as being wrong!
ergo the fact that just because current data has the majority with a view of a Big-Bang, having them to resort to fiction, based on what fancies and or what suits them best as to what existed before the Big-Bang as in "catalyst/s", the point is and still remains all those events preceding to a PERCIEVED and or suggested Big-Bang the Universe never the less pre-existed.. because when I refer to all that is possible, I must consider, if a Big-Bang had eventuated, then a catalyst must be also considered, to which once this catalyst has been considered, I would have to move on to preceding events, so on and so on..

Ain't Maths Beautiful?

Cheers,

Pete..

The rubbishing rhetoric that you ramble is lost on me and undoubtly many others in this forum, any future debate with you would be futile, I leave you to wallow in the slop of your own retoric.

 

[McBell]

Thoughts?

Trouw reports the “Opening sentence of the bible is incorrect” and a “New interpretation of original Hebrew Genesis text negates God as the creator”.

According to Professor Ellen van Wolde, God did not create heaven and earth. Instead he separated them.

Professor Van Wolde, an Old Testament scholar and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, said the standard interpretation of the opening sentence of the bible is no longer acceptable: “The traditional image of God the Creator is untenable. God did not create.”

The professor, who will present her thesis at the Radboud University in Nijmegen on Friday, re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole and of other creation stories from Mesapotamia. She eventually concluded the Hebrew verb bara does not mean to create but to spatially separate.
The Radboud University said the new interpretation is ‘No less than a disruption of the story of the creation as we know it’.

Professor Van Wolde said she understood her findings, which are soon to be published in a leading scientific magazine, will be devastating to traditional believers.

http://www.expatica.com

Sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt to me.

 

[McBell]

The rubbishing rhetoric that you ramble is lost on me and undoubtly many others in this forum, any future debate with you would be futile, I leave you to wallow in the slop of your own retoric.

This pretty much sums it up.

 

[Pure-Truth]

So you claim that because the Big Bang isn't 100% factual that it's not real?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but there is a better model that I have been working on for well over two decades "almost 30 years" now which considers "perceived expansion" which BTW going by the latest data is accelerating, which when discovered was a significant boost to my Model, please make a note my inference to "perceived" comments here, as this model actually considers much physics that the Big-bang theory doesn't consider, such as both general and special relativity, the local speed of light Vs absolute Speed of light, having general and special relativity comply and conform to each other, energy conservation, the universe as a closed system opposed to an open system, and I could go on but in doing so violate this posts maximum allowed word count <sigh>..

Anyway moving on, I ask - Have you ever heard of an explosion behaving in any other way?
The Big-Bang Theory is based on a such a model, which also does not consider this expansion is accelerating, And since the late 90's the discovery of expansion is accelerating, my model complied to one more criteria with respects to both general and special relativity..

The Big Bang is accepted by most scientists because it's what currently fits what we know about the universe. If you've got a better one, you should take it to the scientists, not us.

I am in the process of doing just that, and as much as I would like my Multi-necked Klein Bottle Plotting Model applied to the universe right now, I simply still do not have a powerful enough computer to model some key points, for it to be publishable

What new "testaments" were you speaking of, anyway? Dianetics?

Why are you asking Me? I am not the one messing around with the re-defining of religious passages in order they are made more credible by the creation of some implied old document that is implied to have just been discovered, to which it is them implied as a long lost part of some religions text, which if placed together with old contradictory text seems to glorify and patch up all contradictions to all the old contradictory text..

I thought I made it clear I am totally against such propagation of fiction and that's why I chose to with hold certain facts, in order such evil simply wont hold the knowledge as to what will instantly expose it for what it is..

Cheers,

Pete..

 

[Pure-Truth]

The rubbishing rhetoric that you ramble is lost on me and undoubtedly many others in this forum, any future debate with you would be futile, I leave you to wallow in the slop of your own retoric.

are you willing to continue if I try and simplify?

2~Duh~Loo!

 

[McBell]

Why are you asking Me?..

duh
Because YOU were the one who brought up new testaments.


:slap:
pay attention