I've also thought about that, its interesting, yet a shame..I mean if time travel is possible RIGHT now..we might not even know, as someone keeps changing time around us..

I strongly disagree... have you tried to run a pc off Duracell AAA's or would you recommend Energizer ?

And anyway, I am skeptical, not debunking. I like the idea of time travel and I would love it to be possible. I would also love it if this Egyptian evidence was true, but the problem is, there's just too many holes in it. It all seems to hinge on the discoverers opinion and interpretation, and gets a little bit 'wooahh' when you get to the bottom of the 'worldbreakingdiscoveries' website. Read throught to the end of it and you'll see what I mean.

And I apologise to you in advance, but it does not make their case stronger when people start quoting scenes from fictional TV series/movies in their defence. I think they will have a hard enough time getting recognition from the scientific establishment as it is without people saying 'It's true, I saw it on Star Trek!'

AJ

.


i did not say it was true

ok i got a headache after reading this

How do you know this?



And who would remember these changes? He would, because he changed them. However, you and the rest of us would be oblivious to them. Therefore we would view them as established history.



See above.



Again, see above. This is the problem with discussing this subject. Any changes done by someone else wouldn't be noticed by anyone in the present, simply because once those changes have been made, we would still view the changes as a past event in our timeline. The changes wouldn't be made in our present, they would be made in our past. Therefore 'we' would have no memory of any other timeline, only the time traveller would.



Exactly. Events in the past shape history. So any changes made 'in the past' will just lead to an alternate timeline that 'we' would view as established history.



Sorry? When did I reference Doctor Who? I don't understand that one dude.

I strongly disagree... have you tried to run a pc off Duracell AAA's or would you recommend Energizer ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have pcs that run off of batteries. I believe we call them lab tops.

Nothing sinister... It's just because it's a precept of this mind experiment, that the guy is going back in time to try to create a paradox by killing his Grandpa. If he knew his Grandpa was already dead at a certain moment in the past, logic says he would not go back in time to that moment to try to kill him, maybe thinking that the 'unnamed assailant' was the traveller himself. So he would have to choose a moment in the past when he knew Grandpa was alive and available to kill in order to create a paradox !!



He would not remember it as a 'change' per se from one event into a different event, because even in his timeline or realitys' past, what he did was that established past. He may well consider it 'putting history right'. When the timetraveller is in the past he is doing things that have already been done. His hands are essentially tied. When in the past any changes you make result in the established past. The past of reality.
Question.... Would you consider it a change in events, if one morning you could not find your car keys and had to use your wife's car to go to work ? No, not a change in history, but a change nonetheless. If a timetraveller had hidden your keys, has he changed history or just caused a change ? Then what has he changed ?


Again, someone in the present would not recognise it as a 'change' per se from something into something else, but just as an 'event' that they could relate to. But I agree with you. Just to add that it may well be a necessity for a time traveller to meddle with something when in the past, in order to change it into what we (and he) know as the past.



No, there can be no 'alternate timeline'. Changes made in the past would just result in the past that we know now. One that we remember before any timetraveller went back. The only changes you can make in the past result in the past that you remember before going back. The past is fixed. Example.... A Tmetraveller may go back in time (when a machine is built) and find that he is inescapably drawn into a course of events that leads to the shooting of John Lennon. Results : Lennon was murdered in the past. The timetraveller went back into the past. Changes were made. History is the same. Just because history does not record a timetraveller, does not mean that he wasn't there. Yet.



Well, with the avatar and the signature, I felt sure a Who quote was about to materialize. Credit to you that it didn't !!

AJ

Re-read the previous posts my susceptible friend.

This was my point a few posts back. The so called 'evidence' specifically states that it was not a laptop. So my question stands. What 1990's desktop PC can run off a battery power source, and what does it look like ? And if it was a future super-duper timetravellers battery pack no doubt made by Cybertronic Corporation of the Mars Colony, why didn't the timetravellers use a Cybertronic Super-duper Holographic Thingamajig in stead of an old PC ?

AJ

I don't believe that time travel is possible. Maybe to a different universe where an event occured differently, but not actual travel through time.
For all my love and belief in the unexplained, this I don't think works.
My belief on this is that every time an event can occur more than one way, a universe is created where the other happened. Like I'm typing this right now, another universe could be in the making where I didn't type it.

Whichever, good luck with figuring itout, I do hope they prove it one way or another.


-Kassiel

re read the quote. if you can run a lap top with batteries you can run a desk top with batteries.

Which quote is that ? The one where you call them 'lab' tops or the one where you say if you stick enough batteries together you can run anything ? Or the last two together where you firstly say it was a laptop, then say it was a desktop ?

I maintain that it is not possible to run a 1990's desktop PC on batteries small enough to fit in the stated size of the gopherwood ark (though I may be wrong). It may be possible with modern batteries, but I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why modern (or future) batteries would be employed with a 1990's PC.

Anyone got a theory on this ? I'd love to be convinced.

AJ

The one where i am asked if you can run a pc on everyreadies.


and since a lap top is a pc my answer is yes.


and a desk top can be run off of batteries if you put enough together.

But time travel is possible. It's been proven. The faster you go, the more time slows down for you. If you were to go out into space and go at .5 times the speed of light and come back a year later, 10 years might have passed on earth. I don't have the calculations right I know but I'm just saying that it's possible. The only is that we don't have the technology to go fast enough to really make a difference.

well i do believe that if you do try to change history you wont succed i have seen a short film where a woman goes back in time and throws baby hitler down a river to die but when another maid notices she goes to the street and buys another baby from a poor woman and replaces it and there you go hitler is back but lets say the woman killing the baby didnt succed does that mean there wouldnt be a hitler

You can go back in history and kill hitler as a baby but with in hundred years someone will replace him and do what he did.

Apologies, let me clarify, I don't believe that travel to the past is possible. Considering the fact that we are in fact traveling forward in time this very moment would verify the statement "Time travel is possible."
To change history...impossible.
And even if it was possible, there would be no visible effects.
History shall take whatever twists and turns that it dictates.

-Kassiel

there we go again another non believer or at least imagine

I do imagine...I imagine all the time, in fact, I do wish that I could do such a thing at times, but if you were to change history, you would make your old self obsolete...or would you go back to a point in time where there ended up only being one of you?
What would happen if you saw your double?
I say it's impossible, because there are too many things wrong with it...too many holes I can poke through it.
You may believe what you will.
I certainly will, and you should have noone restrict you by telling you something is not possible or does not exist.
I keep an open mind, and if they prove it I shall willingly accept it, nay, I will wholeheartedly accept it, because if I am proved wrong, I learn that little bit more.

I have never asked in a post if you wanted to use 'everyreadies' (sic). What are they ? Are they similar to Ever Ready batteries ? Anyway, I said Duracell or Energiser. If you are not even sure about what has been written in a post, what makes you think you can make sensible contribution to a discussion ? And even if you mean that post, all you said was 'I did not say it was true' Jan 14th 11:19



You are attempting to hide behind words. It is an accepted convention that a laptop is called a 'laptop' or a 'notebook', and that a desktop PC is called a 'PC'. You know this but are not drawing the distinction in a vain attempt to back up your argument, which you do not support yourself by your own words.... In your two posts of Jan 13th 11:17 and 11:19 in reply to my questions, you draw a distinction between laptops and PCs in replying. You do not say they are the same thing then. Why ?



Show me how this was done then. That's all I ask, and all I have been asking for the past week or so. No one, not even you who is so sure it can be done has been able to show me what type of 1990's battery could have been used. The fact that you cannot show me is very telling.

AJ

This is just semantic. The process you describe is true, but try and find a respected scientist that will call the time dilation effect Time Travel. It's like getting a lift on a stampeding elephant and calling it a bus ride.

All aboard !

AJ

You are attempting to hide behind words. It is an accepted convention that a laptop is called a 'laptop' or a 'notebook', and that a desktop PC is called a 'PC'. You know this but are not drawing the distinction in a vain attempt to back up your argument, which you do not support yourself by your own words.... In your two posts of Jan 13th 11:17 and 11:19 in reply to my questions, you draw a distinction between laptops and PCs in replying. You do not say they are the same thing then. Why ?



Sorry but the last time I looked the only difference between a lap top and a desk top was size. They both do the same job. There are plenty of offices around the country that have a battery back up in case they have a black out.

If I knew how to connect a battery to the pc I would tell you.

You would probable have to use a car battery and a power socket. But you can do the same thing with any battery if you have enough of them and wire them together.

By the way all pcs have a battery pack to keep all of their memory alive when you hit the off button.

Not at all. A laptop works on a much lower voltage and has a reduced power consumption. Hence the ability to run off a battery, and not need the constant high voltage and wattage available through a mains supply. It also does not have a wired mouse !



The UPS that you refer to here last for up to an hour, and that only if they are running once the mains supply is interrupted. They are designed to enable the users to have time to shut down their PCs correctly in order not to lose data. They are not designed to be run from, and could not. Hardly the kind of thing a timetraveller would take on a trip to the past to educate the ancient Egyptians !



It seems that no one else knows how to do it either. Including the chap who posted that he had evidence that it was done.



A car battery, simple single cells like Energizer, Duracell or Ever Ready do not have the voltage, amperage or sustainable power to supply a 1990's desktop PC that uses 220 volts and has a power consumption of around 60 to 75 watts. No 1990's battery could deliver that power for a usable length of time. Yet it is held that a desktop not a laptop was used.



I'm afraid that's just a 3v button cell, like in a common digital watch. It only maintains the memory of the PC bios and cmos, so the programmes can run correctly when the PC is booted. It does not in any way run the PC let alone the monitor, and PC programme memory is permanent even when removed from the PC. You do not need power in a PC to keep programme data so long as it is shut down correctly.

I guess no one can show that timetravellers used a 1990's PC.

(Sigh)
AJ

The other 30 or so accounts also describe things from their own frame of mind, referencing from things that they knew, but all describe the same sequence of imagery and/or content from the three cited cd-roms.

Why am I so sure (that over 30 different accounts from around the world spanning over 4,000 years are describing things from modern cd-roms) ?
In some cases, there is a 100 percent match of ancient descriptions to cd-rom contents. This goes beyond coincidence or imagination.
One or two examples may be coincidences, but over 30, something unusual happened in our past.



The time travellers would probably not use a pc (the basic 1990s type) in their own time for their own work, but as explained, in order for Ronald Pegg to recognize the technology being utilized as reported in many ancient texts, a basic computer system from his era was employed - being mid 1990s PC 386.
Two of the three compact disks (ie. cd-roms) cited contain the main astronomical and historical EVENTS that have been documented in various ancient texts (now known as religious SIGNS). These identifiable signs were found by Pegg and made him aware of the scope of his discoveries. The VISION and DREAM descriptions from other ancient texts were of the contents from the third cd-rom.
Those three cd-roms only require a basic 386 PC to run them.


As described and illustrated in the book cited (page 49 printed version), the third part of the computer transport box described in the Bible is 200 x 50 x 30 cm. It is big enough to contain twenty 12 volt car batteries (or similar) plus an inverter to convert from DC to AC. 20 x 12V = 240V.


“and the CD ROM was created in the 1990's from ancient illustrations and papyrus”

I have never said nor implied that the Ancients cd-rom was created from ancient illustrations and papyrus.
In fact, this cd-rom only gives seven brief accounts of Egyptian imagery.
This cd-rom is NOT about Egypt. It is about five other civilizations around the Mediterranean Basin.

There is no paradox, as the accounts that I have discovered, described by Ani and other Egyptian scribes, are about the contents and imagery from the other sections and cd-roms, and not from the Egyptian section.

First of all, please understand that I do not mean to offend. I am completely unbiased, and open to opinion...

That said.....



So you say that the ancient Egyptians described from their own frame of reference and called them gods and scarab beetles, and were wrong.... yet your sources described from their own frame of reference and called them computer mice, CDs and power boxes and were correct ?

Why are they correct and the Egyptians wrong ? The 30 accounts apply to the same amount and type of people (scholars), whether they be Egyptians or Australians. I think it is grossly pretentious to assume the Egyptians were mistaken and your sources were not.



I doubt the validity of the choice you maintain that the time travellers would have made. Surely it would have been of more importance to impart the message, than to concentrate on the method of data transfer. It would have been easier and much more straight forward to have used equipment from their own era. Equipment that could have still shown the same imagery and message, that would still have been in the same order and with the same impact to the observers. For one thing, it would have made it much more likely to have been believed. If you see a fantastic new movie, and want your friend to see it, do you make a Betamax video copy of it to send to him ? No, you send him a DVD. Same thing should have happened in this instance. It would not have been necessary for anyone to recognise the technology.

It is as if it is more importent to show the technology than the message. Which is easier to misinterpret ? Message or technology ?



Only to particlar religious groups.



Same thing here. Why is it necessary for timetravellers to use 'car batteries' to power their 1990's PC ? Logic says that the first most important thing to convey on this time travel trip would be the message. Way, way down the list would be ensuring earlier (sic) observers recognised the method of distribution of the message. So where on the list of priorities would come 'ensuring that the earlier (sic) observers, knew that the equipment that the travellers used to convey the message was also powered by materials that could be found circa the same time as that equipment' I suggest that that would come so far down a list of requirements that it would not even be on there.

Example : The gold disc on the Voyager spacecraft sent out of our solar system with messages on it for other life forms to find, whilst holding details of how to play the record, did not hold on it instructions on how to generate electricity to power a turntable. Because it was unneccessary.



Whichever CD ROM you refer to is immaterial. Anyone, even you, who decides to draw an image of an ancient Egyptian god has to source a picture from somewhere ! Or are you saying that the editors of the Ancients CD ROM also sourced their material from more direct means ?



I may have refered to Egyptian gods in my haste to post. I do apologise, I had possibly meant to refer to, perhaps, an Etruscan burial vignette which may bear remarkable resemblance to a plate from the said 'Ancients..' CD ROM. If it had been postulated that, say, an image in the Egyptian Book Of The Dead had been influenced by the scribe seeing a plate or two from the Ancients CD ROM. How does that sit with someone who can prove that, say, an editor of the 'Ancients...' CD ROM sourced his plate on the CD ROM by looking at the Egyptian Book Of The Dead ?
A paradox, I believe.

I would suggest that researchers have simply been victim to that easiest of mistake to make in all these years... That of seeing what they want to see.

Example : ELS or 'Bible Code' was once heralded as the greatest discovery of religious significance in recent history. Now it has been shown that ELS is to be found with equally valid results in such diverse documents as 'Moby Dick' and the lyrics of rapper 'Vanilla Ice'. I believe no cloak-and-dagger work was ever at hand, a simple misunderstanding of massive proportions has taken place that supports certain religious beliefs. It is then only too easy to find more... even to alter the size of a cubit to fit the 'correct' pattern.

Thoughts ?

AJ

your assuming a modern day power supply instead of an advanced power supply.


besides if i was going to take a PC to the past I would take either a wind mill device or a solar panel. Neither of which would survive to this day and age.


but if the Egyptians got hold of a PC I still say that it probable came from their past not our future.

No, exactly the opposite. It makes the most logical sense that they would use a future power supply. Yet I am continually told that it was contemporary to the 1990's PC. The car batteries or single cell dry cell batteries (in whatever combination) already suggested would just not be sensible or have the power capability. Even supposing that it was neccessary to pass on the method of telling the message. Why would it be so important to pass on the method of powering the method of telling the message ?



I think you're a little off topic here. I agree with you that a future power source would make the best sense, but it would have had to have fitted in that Gopherwood box (if you accept the new definition of a cubit). The dimensions, according to this certain website, give it at 'centimetres x metres' in size. A wind power device, or a solar one would probably not fit in, nor be the most sensible choice.



This is a new angle. Interesting. Where would the ancient Egyptians get a PC from their past ?
AJ

This is a new angle. Interesting. Where would the ancient Egyptians get a PC from their past ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


from the civ. from before the flood.


No, exactly the opposite. It makes the most logical sense that they would use a future power supply. Yet I am continually told that it was contemporary to the 1990's PC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


maybe the looks of pcs don't change just their operation.


how many changes have we had to pcs and when was the last time their look changed.

I think you have the ‘wrong end of the stick’ as they say.
Am I to understand that your reference to “my 30 sources” relates to 30 modern scholars (who you believe I say agree with Ronald Pegg’s conclusions) ?
This is not what it is about at all.

The Egyptian conclusion that ‘they perceived images from modern cd-roms as gods, etc, etc’ is one of over 30 examples from the past where other ancient people have also seen and documented the contents of the cited cd-roms.

When the stories and descriptions from the following are analysed, various images from the cd-roms are being described in…
Religion, Date, Location, Document
Egypt, 3100 BC, Egypt, Pyramid Texts
Hinduism, 1500 BC, India, Vedas
Hebrew, 1230 BC, Egypt, Torah
Buddhism, 560 BC, India, Writings
Confucius, 550 BC, China, Sayings
Christianity, 33 AD, Palestine, New Testament
Muslim, 600 AD, Iraq, Koran
Mormon, 1827 AD, America, Book of Mormon

In their own ways, these historical people have documented and/or described modern computer technology and/or the contents of the three cited cd-roms.



The same basic argument (that you are using) has been individually applied to the Atlantis discoveries, or the Nostradamus discoveries, or the Bible discoveries, etc, etc. (But note, it has not been proved that the editor of the cd-rom sourced his info/pics by looking at Egyptian BOD.)

One by itself could be as you say, but from over 30 separate accounts (including the 8 above), each negates the argument of the other.
ALL could not have come from the cd makers taking images from over 30 accounts, 24 of which had nothing to do with the topic(s)/civilizations they were presenting.

Eddy

If, by 'civ.' you mean civilization, are you saying that a technological advanced civilization was in existence before the flood, and it was destroyed by same ?
I think I'll leave a discussion on that for someone else.



Not quite sure why you've taken this tack. Even the certain website says it was a 1990's PC that was used. What it looked like was surely immaterial. But you are going along my line of thought here. I am thinking that during the 20th century to the 21st, PCs have changed from the big clunky things that used to sit on top of a whole table using 5" diskettes, through Amiga's and Sinclair Spectrums and Commodores to slimline laptops, or notebooks, to the applemac that has the whole of the case and moving parts contained in the stand that holds the monitor. And there are also the many minor technological changes that have caused physical changes, like CD ROM and DVD drawers, memory card slots, the advancement of large servers and so on. More modern applications include TFT monitors, hologramatic keyboards and wireless mouse ( or mouses, or mice ?). PC's that you buy with no monitor, that you operate through your LCD TV and Mainframe s and AI units that are being developed. Who knows what PC's will look like in the far future that has a time machine in it ?

AJ

No, thats not what I meant. The 30 sources are the 30 ancient accounts. I mean that these 30 accounts were written down by ancient scholars using their own frame of reference.... But, it is unlikely that there were 30 ancient scholars working alone. Maybe they had some people to write for them whilst they dictated, and someone to draw for them, someone to fetch ink and parchment. Still others with whom they discussed what they had seen. Still more people to give comment and advice on what they had seen and the important parts to write down. People to help them remember everything they had seen. These are the erudite scholars of their time, they would not attempt to do it all themselves. All in all, many people would have been involved in writing down these accounts.
The same amount of people have been employed in recent times to 'decypher' these accounts. And the same type of people as those ancient scholars. The ancients were all working separately. But the modern ones were all looking for something specific.

So what I meant was, same amount of people then, same amount of people now. Same type of people then, same type of people now. Why are they wrong and you right ?



This is the claim you make and is what is at discussion here. I contest that claim.



Here, I am not asserting that any Atlantis, Nostradamus or Bible discovery is true. Here we are discussing the actual moment of creation of a certain Etruscan burial vignette, which you are asserting came from a future (in respect to the origin) CD ROM. The only assertion that I am making is that it is possibe that having found a fairly good correlation with a certain CD ROM imagery in one ancient document, it would be an easy and self-fulfilling mistake to then start seeing correlations in other documents.
Please note here, that it has not been proved that the creator of the CD ROM did not source his picture from already existing (1990's) images of old Egyptian pictures. It still appears to be a paradox until proven where the image was first created. If the CD ROM had come first (as asserted by certain people) then it should be relatively easy to find the creator of the CD ROM and ask him where he got the picture from. He could not have got it from an image of the Etruscan vignette, as that was copied from the CD ROM !!

Unless it is a paradox.

What steps did you and your researchers take to ensure independant assessment of your findings ?

AJ

> But, it is unlikely that there were 30 ancient scholars working alone

Ezekiel and Daniel [and Moses] (OT) and John (NT) were visited by two angels (time travellers) who told them to write down what they saw and what they were told. They did, each individually. [Moses perceived his encounter with a tt as GOD.]
Others may have had ‘help’ as you propose, but not these three.

Also another point: Why are they wrong and you right ?

I am not saying the ancient people (cf. Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, John, and others) got it wrong and I am right.
They all described what they saw and heard.
It is the ‘modern scholars’ who have misinterpreted what the ancient accounts actually meant.
Taking the Bible and Book of Mormon as examples, the stories told in Arabic and Hebrew were interpreted and translated into Old English in 1611CE.
This is one of the points in time that the original accounts have been misrepresented and taken out of context. The context used was a religious one.
The ‘scholars’ translated the ancient texts specifically from a religious view. This is why the error occurred.

The Bible stories that we grew up with as kids explain how GOD and his Angels did this and that, etc.
Those stories are the modern English version of the Old English translations.

When the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons from the 1890s Strong’s Concordance are referenced, it is clearly seen that the original root and primary meanings of the ancient words have NOT been used by the 1611 translators - who chose to inert their own religious meanings.

To sum up.
A.) The Egyptians drew a compact disk, etc. which was taken by ‘modern scholars’ to represent the Sun-God RA.
This is where the error has occurred, not with me.
When the BOD, hieroglyphs, and Temple texts, etc are re-read from a computer context, the characteristics and/or physical epithets of the named ‘gods’ do indeed match to cd-rom images.
Taken from a religious perspective, the stories just remain unfounded legends.
The point here is, the perception that the Egyptians worshipped the sun-god RA, is a ‘modern concept’ based on religion.

B.) Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, John, and Smith describe encounters with time travellers and documented the imagery they saw from the cd-roms.
(American English translations of the Book of Mormon were made from the religious context too.)
‘Modern scholars’ have taken the ancient accounts to be about God and angels.
This is where the error has occurred, not with me.
When the original root and primary meanings from Strong’s Concordance are utilized instead of the given religious meanings, it is plainly seen that computer technology and the imagery from the cd-roms are being documented.

Then there is Daniel’s account of about 20 beasts (in any language) that exactly match to the imagery from the Ancients cd-rom.

C.)
Something was seen in ancient times and documented by named historical people: Ancient texts.
Religious translators interpreted these things as being divine and religious: Stories.
The stories we know are therefore the religious versions of the ancient accounts.
Strong’s Concordance returns the texts to their original meanings.
Computer technology and cd-rom images are being described: Discovered by Ronald Pegg.

Ronald Pegg did not write the original texts, nor translate them.
He used Strong’s Concordance to find the original Hebrew and Greek meanings.
Using the original accounts, he found the descriptions matched to modern cd-roms.
I re-examined his works, then conducted my own research and investigations, and using similar methods, found what I present in my E-Book reports.


> So what I meant was..Same type of people then, same type of people now.

Yes, exactly.
Religious people (ie. the erudite scholars you mentioned, but not necessarily the ancient ‘prophet’ himself) using religious ideals to religiously translate and interpret ancient texts and illustrations way back then, and also the same type of people in modern times using the same perspective.

Pegg is not religious, and decided it was best using the original meanings rather than the given (decided) religious ones.


> But the modern ones were all looking for something specific (ie. Pegg and myself)

Yes, maybe, but its called research and investigation.

One example of an ancient picture looking like a compact disk does not mean much, but when examples from over 30 different sources and times describe the same thing(s), the criterion of multiple attestation kicks in and shows what really occurred in the past.


Unfortunately, no.
The 1995 ANCIENTS cd-rom is no longer in production nor available, nor have we (Pegg, Page, and myself) been able to contact the producers of the cd-rom as the company has changed hands and they do not respond to correspondence to their (old) given address.
When others join the project, I hope they may be able to track down the creator and ask what you (and I) want to know to in order to close this part of the investigation.


Pegg’s work was sent to seven Australian Universities on 12th October 2000 but to date I have not been informed of their findings.
Pegg’s work was placed on the internet from 2001.
I studied Pegg’s work then conducted my own research from 2003 to 2006.
I spent 2007 setting up a News & Information website to present the evidence to the world for examination.
I continue to communicate with people such as yourself on forums.
Pegg’s original reports are available for free while my Reports may be purchased either on-line world-wide or in Australia only, as printed books.

The research has been done. The reports have been written. The findings are being presented.
World-wide independent assessment has begun.

7 Australian Universities,hmm? Care to name them? Or any reputable reseachers affiliated with those Uni's that might be contacted to verify your account?

I'm curious. Didn't these ancient Egyptian CD burners discover the mini CD?
And what did you use as 'evidence' before CD's?
8-tracks?

Wether you beleieve Christ was a prophet or he came from the future, He is the path and the true son of the Most High God.

if religion is just a popularity contest then yeah. and if you believe the bible word for word

Well, by 'modern scholars', I meant you, so I guess I have to agree with you on this point.

For my part this discussion has come to the end of its useful life. Though I have lots more to say on this subject, I really can't be bothered to go round and round in circles with anyone. I have always considered myself an average joe. I take the world as I find it, I pass through life making the best of it that I can. There are some things I believe without doubt, like Death and taxes, Jesus being the Son of God and the existence of life on other planets. Whilst there is nothing that I would point blank refuse to believe, there is a lot that I have a hard time with and admittedly, even more that I would have fun with.

But this isn't one of them, it's too ridiculous to continue with.
AJ

I clearly explained that the ‘modern scholars’ to whom I referred were the 1611CE Old English translators plus subsequent scholars who use their methods and religious context of translations and interpretations.

I also said that Ronald Pegg (and myself) used the original meanings from Strong’s Concordance and not the ‘given’ religious meanings employed by the 1611CE translators.



If you bother to investigate, when Strong’s Concordance is checked, you will clearly see which words have and have not used the original Hebrew and Greek meanings.

Until then, you may continue to believe what you have been told by the religious translators.

this is true but the tower looks the same.

There are between 100,000 and 150,000 hairs on the average human head. Would you like to split each and every one of them ?

AJ

A final comment or post script, or whatever you want to call it........



I was under the impression that I had made it clear that the 'modern scholars' to whom I was referring were those who made this new interpretation of the ancient documents. I was referring to you and your fellow researchers as those scholars !!



As pointed out to you in other forums, Strongs' Concordance is not and has never purported to be a translation. It is a 'list' of words, recurrence of those words and their places in the Bible, and as such carries no 'meanings' for those words other than the basic root meaning. As I pointed out earlier, the word 'cross' has 16 definitions in The Oxford English. In Strong's Concordance it has only one, and is given one number. The translation and interpretation of those words and the choice of context in a passage is still down to the researcher.



So unless are you saying that there actually are specific words in ancient Hebrew or Greek for 'compact disc' and 'monitor' you would have had to have given your own interpretation to root words such as 'tablet' or 'window' taken from the concordance and then decided the context in which to use them.



Quite the contrary, my dear fellow. As example, I believe I mentioned earlier on this thread that the Biblical account of The Flood holds no water for me (excuse pun). I believe in what seems logical and supportable to me. Not every mystery of this world requires hard evidence, but usually those that fly in the face of reason and common understanding, that insist that most all of those people who have gone before them have got it wrong do.
I sincerely hope that you do not have to wait much longer than the 7 years you currently have waited, to receive a report back from those educational institutions to whom you have submitted your findings. I hope you can deal with what they tell you.

This is the last post I shall make on this particular subject.
(a relief to all)

AJ

You cannot change things as such.

If I ask for a car, and get a car, then travel back in time and ask for an airplane, and get an airplane, then to me, time is still continuous. Time is an illusion, it is simply how we see what is happening before, now, and after. And to you, chronologic is essentially what happened first. The only difference is that to others the order might change but you did at some point in the past ask for a car. Maybe for people it will be in the future, but it doesn't matter. The past, the present, and the future, all fit together like a jigsaw. If someone travelled back in time to kill jesus christ or something like that, then it already happened. To explain: you are seeing this from a point of view of someone 'inside' time. Or more technically speaking, chronologic. From the outside, these are simply events. Maybe more dimensions exists, maybe laws regulate these things, maybe laws exist automatically to regulate things like that, but whatever it is, it is a big equation that will always be balanced. It is us, that aren't always balanced.

If you go back in time and marry your mother, you will simply find that it is true, rather than actually change anything. You get it?

It will simply fit together. You knew your father, yes, you just didn't know that it was you... Because if someone changes the past, then to you the past is what has already changed... It's all fitting together like a jigsaw. It's just like getting your test grade back. Before you do, you know that it can be any one of multiple possibilities. But once you do get it, you know what it is. But say, then, that you do go back in time to change that grade. You will find that your grade is actually changed to what already happened in the future...

Like think, how many times you simply wanted to get to work at 8 am and ended up at the hospital Maybe some third party is watching, maybe we can only do what actually fits some general picture, or 'intelligent design', maybe it is all possibilities from which we can choose rather than create... But I am certain that free will and time travel are linked together... And that perception is always relative, and that time is relative, but chronologic is absolute, because in the end, it has already happened, at some point in the future. And since that point in the future where 'everything' happened is theoretically impossible, since infinity cannot be accounted for or said to have an end, then this point of view could be in some other dimension, outside of space and time, where perhaps God is? If God exists?

Anyhow, I hope this has given you some ideas to feel comfortable with the concept of time travel and whatever it is that's worrying you. If it does, call it home, and blither, not everything makes sense, from our human perspectives

Good Luck

Cruentos Solum,

Cheers

This seems as if it could be true. It fits with logic. Anything that you go back in time to do, is in 'the past that existed and is remembered as history from' before you went back in time. Is this what you meant ?
If you go back in time, and marry your mother, this must have happened, because it was an event that happened in the past which itself existed as 'the past that you remember as a series of events from before you went back in time.'
I concur.

As for the previous post, you could go back in time and kill Hitler, but only on a technicality, as it were. Because the past that you know as true now, says Hitler was not killed. Either : i) he was killed and history does not record it, or ii) he was not killed. Only the time traveller (and those present in 'the past') would know.

AJ

When Ronald Pegg’s autobiography is released at the end of the year you will be amazed how he describes “someone” helping him with his discoveries and translations.

One of the methods of communication was his telephone ‘dinging’ and waking him up from a deep sleep, and when the digital time numbers were compared with the previous night’s work, errors were often found and corrected.

For example, if Pegg was woken up by a double ‘ding’ on his telephone at 5:12am, and he had been studying (for example) the Old Testament Book of Daniel, then rechecking Daniel 5:12 from the previous days work - an error of translation or conclusion would be found and thus corrected.

The same types of thing happened when he was investigating Nostradamus and the other Books of the Bible.

if you go back in time to change something, and you changed it, you wouldn't have changed anything. Because if you changed something in the past, you would never had gone in the past to change that thing because the problem is fixed. That doesn't mean you can't go back in time, just that you can't change anything. Then again, maybe going back in time is moving foward on the time line.
Diagram:





Event Going back in time. change future
_______________________________________________________________________
see, you never go back in time but just going through the time line like normal. You actually travel to a different dimension with the time sequence of the event being in that dimension, then when you come back, you start out in a new dimesion just created because of your change. I'm sorry if it sounds confusing or simple to some of you.

thank you!
thats what my thread was about 'time travel. cool...but useless?'
just because if you go back to change something, youll be living in a world, where that Never happened anyways.

why do you think I said you could go back and change something minor but nothing major or any key events.


minor event delay vote on ww2 by 1 second. major event stopping the vote. key event stopping the holocaust.

I agree with you, that if you could go back in time you could only change things into what you knew as the past anyway. But only sort of agree with Third, that 'if you had changed something, you would never have gone back to change it anyway'........... because you would have gone back, as proven by the fact that you changed it. So yeah, time travel would be cool, but useless.

AJ

I wouldn't say quite useless. You could go back in time and bring information back with you. What really happened to the dinosaurs? etc.

but you couldn't go back in time kill a butterfly and change the whole outcome of history. as seems to popular in some movies. as good as the movies might be.


Or even worse as in the last such movie I watched where both histories collide in the present. Sorry forget the name.

Well, technically, you couldn't go back in time at all, so all of this is speculation. I can speculate in many directions on how time travel might be accomplished and what the results of tripping through the ages might be. But only my belief that one method is better than the others will determine what I believe the results to be. It's all still speculation. One "if" stacked on top of another, and there's not point in arguing over what the truth is at that point.

On second thought, it's time you knew the truth, danielost. You used to agree with me exactly on every point I make, but I went back in time, nudged you at a precise, pivotal moment when you were six years old, and now you are much more interesting! Do you remember that moment? I didn't think so. That's how subtle I am.

You're welcome!


OS


P. S. If you *do* remember that moment, just let me know. I'll go back and let myself know that I need to be more subtle. I'll get it right eventually.

no but i remember the minute of my birth. That by the way is the truth.