Bible Errancy

[Ouroboros]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

[Guest Acorn]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

I am curious about that, what referance the riddles using. The GM Thats great. Like the GM at my job Lord, forgive me, that was to funny, Im a blasphemer!

[Ouroboros]

I am curious about that, what referance the riddles using.

One could wonder if the translation is made to fit the theory? Besides, there's only some 500 unique words used in the Bible, and there's - I don't know - maybe 250,000 words in total in there, so certain word combinations, just by pure chance of statistics and probability, should show up. It's like trying to write a sequence of 11 digits, using our decimal system. I can already now predict that if you try, there will be a digit in there twice. It's a miracle!

[heretic5]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

Another vaild and important question. I would therefore love to tell you that I have explored this topic and know all about it. The truth, to my shame, is that I have not. My flimsy excuse for that is that I have been too busy with daily life, and extracting what are hopefully the words of the GM, and solving the riddles inherent in them.

 

As to the solving of the riddles, I have noticed that they seem to be related to each other in a fashion which is similar to the way the words in a crossword puzzle are related. Not that the words are related in that fashion; but that the topics are. Another way of describing the interrelatedness of the riddles is to say that they are similar to a fishing net in that any one knot is related to all other knots because, from one point of view, they are all joined together.

 

Of course, this interrelatedness is not visible after solving merely one riddle. It's not noticable until at least several have been solved. But someone might object, and perhaps rightly so, that the relatedness is merely an artifact of the manner in which the riddles are solved. This is because riddles are solved by comparing comparisons. So of course they would seem to be related, many might say.

 

The only objection that I see to that idea is that it has come to pass that, while I was exploring one thread of riddles, I have come across a connection to another thread of riddles which I had earlier solved without any involvement of the other strand of riddles. And yet, although I had solved each strand of the riddles independently of the other strand, all of a sudden, a connection between them was visible. So did I subsconsciously do that? Was I manipulated? Or are they inherently interconnected?

 

I suspect the latter because there is one particular riddle which is indicated to be the place to start solving them, like the rip cord on a parachute, or like a crossword puzzle with one word already filled in for you. But I did not notice that at first; so I started elsewhere. Eventually, I was in a morass of confusion, and the tangle brought me to a stop. It wasn't until then that I stopped long enough to closely look at the riddles on the homepage as a group. Only then did I notice that one of them had been singled out. So I backed out and started over. No more problems since doing that.

 

Hoping that this additional info, although woefully incomplete, is of benefit, heretic5.

[heretic5]

I am curious about that, what referance the riddles using.

One could wonder if the translation is made to fit the theory? Besides, there's only some 500 unique words used in the Bible, and there's - I don't know - maybe 250,000 words in total in there, so certain word combinations, just by pure chance of statistics and probability, should show up. It's like trying to write a sequence of 11 digits, using our decimal system. I can already now predict that if you try, there will be a digit in there twice. It's a miracle!

 

 

On the one hand, that must be true, at least to some extent. On the other hand, one might begin to wonder, after having solved many riddles and having discovered their interrelatedness,: is this another consequence of statistics, or is this by intervention? Is this trail of bread crumbs here by chance or by intention? The only way I have found to answer that question is to follow the trail in order to see where it goes. But I will readily admit that some trails of bread crumbs, although they are there by intention, the intention is not to correctly inform, the intention is to deceive. For instance, the so-called Bible Code.

 

So what difference, if any, is there between the Bible Code and let us call it the Two Witness method? One noticable difference is that one cannot find in the Bible any instruction to use the Bible Code method of extracting info from the Bible, while one can find in the Bible the instruction to use the Two Witness method of extracting info from the Bible.

 

Oh really? And exactly where does it say to do that? It says that in the commonality of:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

If you plod through them, extracting the words which are common to at least two authors, you wind up with this:

Every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

 

But isn't it a stretch from that to saying that it validates the method? It is self-validating. It was extracted by using itself to extract itself. So one obvious question is: where did I get the idea to do what nobody else had done for at least 2,000 years? Intervention, anyone?

[heretic5]

....researched into the authinticity of Isaiah.

 

Yes, you are correct to imply that the Two Witness method does requires that some lines be drawn in the sand. For instance, does Isaiah have one or two authors? The evidence, as you already know, is that there were at least two authors. The evidence is nevertheless not enough for me to be comfortable to say, "Chapters A, B, and C are by one author and chapters X, Y, and Z are by another author." If I were to say that, then I would be logically forced to use the Two Witness method to extract info from the two portions of Isaiah by comparing one portion of Isaiah with the other portion of Isaiah. To me, the risk of error is too much in that case. So I did not go down that road, although it so happens that I knew that it might be a valid thing to do. (But you had no way to know that I knew that; so you did well to point it out. Thank you for your kind intention.)

 

Yes, the question, of how many people authored the book of Isaiah, is a now matter of opinion. So if somebody comes across some additional evidence which shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Isaiah can reliably be divided into two portions; then fine, I would be willing to go down that road. Until then, I follow the chart of authors as shown at

http://greatriddle.flifree.com/authors.htm

 

Of course, if somebody wants to go down that road, even without any evidence, they are free to do so. By the same token, everybody else is free to ignore the results, if there is no conclusive proof that Isaiah has two authors, and that specific chapters are by "Author A" while other specific chapters are by "Author B".

 

But I digress. Back to the chart. If you inspect that chart, you will quickly notice that I side-stepped all of the controversies about authorship by the same expedient that I used in the case of Isaiah: err on the side of safety. For instance, in the controvery about the authorship of the Pauline Epistles, I said, for the benefit of safety, Paul wrote them all. Although it's relegated to a place beneath the chart, I said the same thing when it came to the case of the Book of Mormon: the whole thing had one only author.

 

Are all of those decisions correct? Probably not; but I don't yet have any positive proof that shows which ones are wrong and should therefore be changed. So, for now, that's the guideline I use. Other people are free to use the guideline of their choice or invention.

 

Hoping that this info about the topic of authorship is helpful, heretic5.

[MonolithTMA]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

Since Joseph Smith gave back the gold plates he translated from, the original manuscript of the book of Mormon would be in English.

 

Perhaps this would prove useful:

The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Hardcover)

[crazy-tiger]

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

If you plod through them, extracting the words which are common to at least two authors, you wind up with this:

Every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

 

But isn't it a stretch from that to saying that it validates the method? It is self-validating. It was extracted by using itself to extract itself. So one obvious question is: where did I get the idea to do what nobody else had done for at least 2,000 years? Intervention, anyone?

I've come to the conclusion that you're nothing more than a fucking nutter...

 

 

 

Wait...

No, you're a nutter...

If you plod through them, extracting the words that are common to at least two authors, you wind up with this:

 

you're a nutter...

 

 

 

 

There you go... just because two or more people say something doesn't mean it's true... in which case your whole idea is meaningless. Or, and this is important, you're a nutter.

 

Of course, it could be both...

[par4dcourse]

Acorn and Heretic5 going at it is funnier than "battle of the Jay-walk all stars." Who exactly is the bigger idiot is yet to be decided, but my moneys on H5.

[heretic5]

Since Joseph Smith gave back the gold plates he translated from, the original manuscript of the book of Mormon would be in English.

 

Perhaps this would prove useful:

The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text (Hardcover)

 

 

Thank you for your suggestion. The description of that book reminds me of a book by A. E. Knoch. He bought facsimiles of the Alexandrinus, the Sinaticus and the Vaticanus, cut them into strips, and laid the strips on long rows of tables, one strip near the top, another near the middle, and the other towards the bottom. Then he translated the Greek to English, word for word, in a literal manner, and wrote the translation on paper which was underneath the strips. Of course, the strips were not of equal lengths, because the versions are not the same. So some strips had gaps when they had fewer words than another version. Knoch made note of the gaps, the erasures, the cross-outs, etc, on the paper, in a line above the Greek text. Then he cut the strips into chunks, according to whichever strip was the longest in that place, of 50 Greek letters each chunk. Each chunk became a line on a page in a book. Forty lines per page, if my memory serves me.

 

However that might be, I used that book as a double-check of the extraction process for the first four books of the New Testament. That is, the first pass used the KJV as-is. The results of that pass were run through the screen of Knoch's book. Any word which he reported that only one version had in a particular place, was deleted from the results.

 

So what I suppose that you are suggesting is that the facsimiles of the Book of Mormon could be used for the same purpose - screening out words which have been added or changed since it first saw the light of day, or conversely, adding back words which have since been deleted. Although I believe that your suggestion is correct, I am nevertheless not going to immediately impliment it because I am operating on the 80-20 rule. That is, I have left the extraction from the Book of Mormon and moved on to the extraction from the Old Testament in the belief that I got 80% of what I could get from the Book of Mormon on the first pass.

 

But if you would like to refine the extraction from the Book of Mormon by the means which you mentioned, I for one would certainly welcome that. If you would merely like to see the results of the first extraction from the Book of Mormon, they are available beginning at

http://greatriddle.flifree.com/established...-a.htm#Item_001

 

Thanking you for your suggestion, heretic5.

[heretic5]

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

If you plod through them, extracting the words which are common to at least two authors, you wind up with this:

Every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

 

But isn't it a stretch from that to saying that it validates the method? It is self-validating. It was extracted by using itself to extract itself. So one obvious question is: where did I get the idea to do what nobody else had done for at least 2,000 years? Intervention, anyone?

I've come to the conclusion that you're nothing more than a fucking nutter...

 

 

 

Wait...

No, you're a nutter...

If you plod through them, extracting the words that are common to at least two authors, you wind up with this:

 

you're a nutter...

 

 

 

 

There you go... just because two or more people say something doesn't mean it's true... in which case your whole idea is meaningless. Or, and this is important, you're a nutter.

 

Of course, it could be both...

 

 

I certainly agree with your contention that just because two people agree, does not make it true. The Jehovahs Witnesses are one group which nevertheless operate as if it did make it true. The Mormons also subscribe to the idea that just because two people agree, its true. Hence they go out in no less than pairs, as we all know.

 

Well, if I readily agree with you to that extent, then how is the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon is a different situation? Or is it? I allege that it is a different situation for the reason that the GM, or the ultimate Gamer, or the whatever-label-you-prefer, decided - for the benefit of justice and/or mercy - to write his/its words in books, specifically, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon (the latter to be considered to be merely one book).

 

I also allege that words, which were not the words of the GM, were also written into those books.

 

On what do I base these allegations? On these verses in the KJV:

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

 

Their commonality reads:

Is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

 

Given that this commonality were to be true, then we discover that there are three places where the GM stashed his/its words. One stash is obviously where this notification is found, the New Testament. Another stash is only slightly less obvious, the Old Testament. The third stash is even less obvious, the Book of Mormon.

 

Although it's all well and good to know where the GM stashed his/its/her words, it doesn't help much until and unless a way to extract them from their stashes were to be available.

 

In that regard, I also allege that an extraction process is available. The extraction process has previously been mentioned in this thread; so it need not be repeated.

 

But although the location of the stashes is known, and at least some of the words of the GM have been extracted from those stashes, and although that is a help; it is even better to understand what was meant by what was said and done. Hence the recommendation that the riddles be solved. Some people might not want to act on that suggestion. Oh well.

[Amethyst]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

Yeah, is it Elven, Dwarven, Orcish, Trollish, Bugbear, Common, Halfling, or something completely different?

[The-Captain]

Bugbear.

[crazy-tiger]

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

 

Their commonality reads:

Is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

You're a selective little bugger, ain't you?

 

How about adding in, say...

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

What does that do? I mean, since you're working on the commonality of verses ripped out of context, and since you've run on 3 verses together for your "system", adding a 3rd verse for this cannot really be denied...

 

And what do you get?

 

"leaven of the"

 

 

Don't like mixing and matching OT with NT?

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

And that gets you...

 

"and of the"

 

 

Doesn't work, does it?

Given that this commonality were to be true, then we discover that there are three places where the GM stashed his/its words. One stash is obviously where this notification is found, the New Testament. Another stash is only slightly less obvious, the Old Testament. The third stash is even less obvious, the Book of Mormon.

 

Although it's all well and good to know where the GM stashed his/its/her words, it doesn't help much until and unless a way to extract them from their stashes were to be available.

 

In that regard, I also allege that an extraction process is available. The extraction process has previously been mentioned in this thread; so it need not be repeated.

 

But although the location of the stashes is known, and at least some of the words of the GM have been extracted from those stashes, and although that is a help; it is even better to understand what was meant by what was said and done. Hence the recommendation that the riddles be solved. Some people might not want to act on that suggestion. Oh well.

Here's a problem, since it's shown that you have to pick and choose which verses to use to get the "commonality" you're presenting, it's quite obvious that your technique doesn't fucking work unless you're cherry-picking the facts to fit the conclusion you want to reach.

 

 

Guess where we've seen that kind of fucktardedness before......

 

[heretic5]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

Yeah, is it Elven, Dwarven, Orcish, Trollish, Bugbear, Common, Halfling, or something completely different?

 

Ha! You have a vivid imagination. Thanks for the chuckle. No wonder that you picked the signature which you did.

 

However that might be, I have to admit that I have no knowledge of the words of the GM being in any language except English, despite the fact that I also read and speak Spanish. My flimsy excuse for my present ignorance in this regard is that I simply have not had the time to investigate that aspect of the situation. So I for one would certainly welcome the efforts of anybody who wanted to investigate.

[crazy-tiger]

Almost forgot...

I certainly agree with your contention that just because two people agree, does not make it true. The Jehovahs Witnesses are one group which nevertheless operate as if it did make it true. The Mormons also subscribe to the idea that just because two people agree, its true. Hence they go out in no less than pairs, as we all know.

 

Well, if I readily agree with you to that extent, then how is the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon is a different situation? Or is it? I allege that it is a different situation for the reason that the GM, or the ultimate Gamer, or the whatever-label-you-prefer, decided - for the benefit of justice and/or mercy - to write his/its words in books, specifically, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon (the latter to be considered to be merely one book).

All you're doing is showing the common theme/words that 2 or more authors have used, then using that to show that what they said is true...

 

 

WHICH IS NO FUCKING DIFFERENT!

 

 

 

 

 

You've just destroyed the basis of your own claims... am I the only one who finds this amusing?

[crazy-tiger]

No, I haven't, for several reasons. I nevertheless agree that it would be interesting to know the answer to that. So if you feel like making the investigation, please do.

So which language/version/translation and which generation of language (medieval, renaissance, romantic, modern, etc) does the GM speak through?

 

Yeah, is it Elven, Dwarven, Orcish, Trollish, Bugbear, Common, Halfling, or something completely different?

 

Ha! You have a vivid imagination. Thanks for the chuckle. No wonder that you picked the signature which you did.

 

However that might be, I have to admit that I have no knowledge of the words of the GM being in any language except English, despite the fact that I also read and speak Spanish. My flimsy excuse for my present ignorance in this regard is that I simply have not had the time to investigate that aspect of the situation. So I for one would certainly welcome the efforts of anybody who wanted to investigate.

Go investigate... until you've done the work in the original language, don't fucking bother arsing about with insane claims about what a mis-translated work says. Don't try to get others to do your work for you, go out there and do it yourself.

 

 

Can't be bothered to do that? Then admit that your claims are, at best, a mockery of what this "super-gamer" said and at worst, complete fucking gibberish!

[hereticzero]

Amen!

 

Amen!

 

 

OH SHIT! It happened again! I call JINX. God is with us man, Monolith and HanSolo the two prophets. I bet we're the ones that gonna preach the end times, before the Pizza Guy comes back... no, wait... Jezombie... damn it... what's his name again? You know, God's grandson?

Ronald Reagan?

[The-Captain]

I recommend that we just leave this thread be and stop feeding the loon troll.

[heretic5]

I mean, since you're working on the commonality of verses ripped out of context...

 

Context? Ah yes. Important topic. Well, the original context is not often to be found in the extracted text. The reason for the usual lack of original context is mentioned in the commonality which reads, "Is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." The sources for this commonality having been previously mentioned, let me now focus on the word "meal". The word "meal" means seed which has been broken. One of the consequences of the process of breaking the seed is that the broken pieces are often displaced from their original relationships which they had while they were still in the unbroken seed. Hence the present context is often not a reliable indication of what the original context might have been. But most people do not realize that the seed was broken in order to hide the leaven among it. So most people do not realize that the present context might not be the original context.

 

Hoping that this clarification of the "context" situation is helpful, heretic5.

[Grandpa Harley]

No... you're a nutter...

[heretic5]

How about adding in, say...

Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

What does that do? I mean, since you're working on the commonality of verses ripped out of context, and since you've run on 3 verses together for your "system", adding a 3rd verse for this cannot really be denied...

 

And what do you get?

 

"leaven of the"

 

 

Hm. I quickly agree with the idea that there is such a thing as a signal-to-noise ratio; and that it is possible to attempt to extract signal from what is mostly noise. So I would readily admit that I have set the squelch control in an arbitrary manner. If anybody else would like to repeat the extraction process with a different squelch setting, that would be very interesting. Personally, I think the example you gave was with the squelch control off, or nearly so, and that what seems to be signal was in reality noise, in that particular instance.

 

However that might be, the concept of squelch is of importance; so thank you for mentioning it.

[heretic5]

Don't like mixing and matching OT with NT?

 

 

http://greatriddle.flifree.com/established...a/e0-000020.htm

 

Hundreds of additional examples of matches between OT and NT could be cited. Perhaps less shouting and more reading would save you the embarassment of making claims which can easily and quickly shown to be false?

[heretic5]

... until you've done the work in the original language, don't fucking bother arsing about with insane claims about what a mis-translated work says.

 

Do the extraction instructions require extraction in the original language, or is that your requirement?

[Michael]

Dear heretic5,

 

I am working since many years with people, who have mental problems. I do not want to be rude, but I think that you should have a serious look at your way of thinking. If you would be more often around with real human beings, you would notice the huge lack of reality in your posts. It is much easier to construct your own "world" than living a real life with real limitations and real emotions.

Again, I do not want to be rude, but your behaviour shows, that you should take care of yourself. Get help from other people and start to live your life in a new and healthier way.

 

Kind regards

Michael