Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Eddy_P

The Book with Seven Seals - FOUND

258 posts in this topic

Interesting find there Likely Guy. Quite correct alsoby saying that it doesn't give credence to any theory.

Well, the best example of this, is what Quaentum posted earlier, about the use of modern Hebrew to come up with DVD instead of correctly using ancient Hebrew where the sounds made were totally different. That post was spot on, yet the answer was ......"no you're wrong".... It's this kind of behaviour that destroys any credibility left.

I think we can all agree that the premise and the theory are quite flawed.

Agreed.

I love the "no you are wrong cause i say so" answers and arguments lol. I cant prove you wrong, there is no evidence to show that you are wrong, but take my word for it you are wrong. hahahahahahahah love it.

such a well balanced position to take :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears there really was a Ronald John Pegg in Queensland. Ancestory.com says he voted from 1949 to 1980, and probably after, but the records are probably just not available yet.

Also, I found a Ronald William Pegg that died in Melbourne in 2011.

PEGG. - A Service to celebrate the life of Mr Ronald William Pegg will be held in the Le Pine Chapel, 1048 Whitehorse Rd (cnr Linsley St), Box Hill on THURSDAY (Sept. 22, 2011) at 10.00 a.m. In lieu of flowers, donations to Eastern Palliative Care would be appreciated. Envelopes will be available at the Chapel.

Published in Herald Sun on September 20, 2011

I've found Ancestory.com to be a interesting Research tool.

Found many other Ronald Peggs, but not in Australia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, someone from Queensland, using their 07 State area code, contacted me several times by telephone during the late 1990s.

Then there are the signed letters from Ronald Pegg, post dated ‘Queensland’ that I received.

Then there is his autobiographical work that contains personal details, as well as details of his work and how the time travellers communicated him, including the placement of the message that James Strong who compiled Strong’s Concordance (during the 1800s in America) was the decoding key.

Someone phoned, wrote, and gave me work to examine. He said his name was Ronald Pegg from Townsville, Queensland (Australia).

So in good faith (as anyone would do), I concluded from the evidence presented to me that, someone called Ronald Pegg, from Queensland was a researcher who had made some amazing discoveries.

So we have to take your word for it.

I doubt it.

Why complicate things even more ? They had a specific task to do, being the placement of messages in ancient texts.

But, you would consider it possible? Or, that a great many other time travels showed up and each provided a bit.

So only three cd-roms were essential for the placement of messages plus the general religious history from the printed books, but all the other floppy disks and compact disk to run the 386/486PC system (including the computer itself and its mouse & cable) plus the fourth cd-rom were either shown or told to other ancient people so their added testimonies would augment the evidence provided by the descriptions in ancient texts of the contents of the Ancients cd-rom (and what you have examined from the OP is just 3 of over 20 accounts discovered by Pegg).

This is explained on the ‘Observation’ page of the original on-line evaluation Test.

(The OP presented access to the Official Research and Evaluation site.)

This link provides access to the methodical process from Pegg’s discovery and hypothesis through to his conclusion and evaluates each of four accounts separately:

OK. That did show me what I was looking for....

Based on observing certain pictures from the main menu page of the Ancients cd-rom being described by John in the Book of Revelation at verses 4:6-7, Ronald Pegg wondered whether consulting other ancient texts of similar nature would produce similar observations.

So he started with a realization that his CD main menu reminded him of Revelations with its 7 seals. And he went on from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually did do the famous tests, by Eddy's website, a perfect waste of 60 minutes btw. To give an example of how it is all interpreted, see the following.

calffeet.jpg This is referred to as a calf. This btw is also the size of the pics used.

Well....how to say this nicely, this is in fact the roman wolf that raised Remus and Romulus.

See the below picture for comparison.

T631137A.jpg

And that's just one example of the fallacy being perpetrated here. It's build on imagination and assumptions and then some.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You have ignored what I have said and that there are two separate ‘subjects’ in the verses 2-4.

My post clearly places verse 3 as part of the ‘what was spoken (ie. cried)’ being “and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’”.

Once John had finished hearing all this, he then reported that “the seal of the living God” was told to him. Being “I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000”.

So no, what I said does not support your interpretation of the verse.

Lets start with the verses as they actually are in the KJV:

Revelation

7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

7:5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

7:6 - 7:8 reference the other tribes.

Nowhere in those verses of the KJV does John report that the seal of the living god was told to him though he does say he saw an angel with the seal of the living god. Neither does he say "I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000" . If you look at 7:4 above John says "the number of them which were sealed". Them is plural meaning more than one. When you look at the flow of the beginning of chapter 7 we have what is going to happen to the Earth, That it should not happen until the servants are sealed, that the number of them is 144,000 and that the total is divided equally among the 12 tribes of Israel. If you read it in it's entirety you can see that yes it does support what I have said which is not my interpretation but simple reading and comprehension of what was written.

No. The 144,000 was verbally told to John as the number 144,000 as a separate statement.

The 12 lots of 12:00:00 were a visual thing seen by John, and relates back to the Old Testament religiously perceived use of seeing it back then, but where the tithe comes into play is were ‘key words’ are included.

In the PGW context ‘troops’ or ‘sword’ could be the keyword, and also ‘tribes’ as stated by John.

So the inclusion of the word ‘tribes’ sets this as a 10 percent situation.

The 144,000 may be in a separate verse (7:4) but the use of the word and at the beginning of that verse indicates it is a continuation of 7:3 and ties "them which were sealed" into the the reference to servants. John is told the number of them which were sealed being 144,000 of all the tribes of the children of israel yet nowhere does he indicate that he is told or saw that it was 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. Based on that, the most logical conclusion is that he evenly divided the 144,000 between the different tribes.

As I have said before, the Ancients cd-rom is not about Hebrew nor Christian Religion, neither does it contain any Hebrew nor Christian pictures.

and as I have said, it's not about the text or the cd-rom but your purposeful application of the sounds associated with modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew text. It is incorrect and invalidates that part of your theory. Let me reiterate, It is not about the text ot the cd-rom but your actions of incorrectly applying the sounds of modern Hebrew to ancient Hebrew text.

Unless they were describing something new to them but in terms they knew. Then it would be perfectly logical to describe a rotating round disk as a ‘rolling’, being like a rolling small wheel.

Yet it has been pointed out to you previously, the cd would not spin until it was in the closed cd drive and they would never have seen it spin and would not describe it as rolling.

Yes, exactly what an Egyptian did (about 640 and 1300 years before Ezekiel and John).

The scribe Ani has depicted what two time travellers showed him and has also described its contents.

He has drawn the form of a compact disk, used the ‘straight line’ underneath it to show it is a real object, named it as the RA-Disk (with the vocalization of ‘ra’ matching the sound of the makers of the Ancients cd-rom, being sca-LA, and shown its owner as a sitting man in white.

Tell me Ed, how many years have you trained and worked at translating hieroglyphics? I'm willing to bet none, yet you feel your translations are coreect and those who have done the work are wrong. The puts you squarely in the realm of fringe writers who have come up wuith their own translations which were incorrect but who peddled them as correct to try to support their theory.

No. You have already been told this is not the case back in a reply to your post #4594694.

I know this part is out of order but I am using it to tie it all together.

Yes I knwo you have told me that I am wrong that the cd was not created based on history but that history came about because of the cd's and time travelers.

  • In your posts you have changed the KJV text, dismissed sentence structure and ignored syntax.
  • You have made unsupported statements about what John supposedly saw.
  • You have not only failed to acknowledge your incorrect application of modern Hebrew sounds to ancient Hebrew script but have continued to act as though it has something to do with the text or the cd's when it is your doing.
  • You have made bad assumptions such as the ancients seeing the cd rom spin when that would have been physically impossible.
  • You have used your own incorrect personal translations of hieroglyphics over the translations of those who have trained and studied for years.

In essence, Ed, all that you have posted and shown, has not supported your theory but undermined it. It has been undermined to the point where it no longer sits on the ground but is in a hole. The more you try to validate your theory using bad assumptions, unsupported statements, misuse of alphabet sounds and incorrect translations, the more you undermine your theory and the deeper the hole you dig.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ronald Pegg is no more - passed away. RIP

I have to agree with the above post from Quaentum: Eddy you use certain things out of contence and swear by it. Then when PROVEN wrong, write that off as opinion and carry on with your theory. Then when PROVEN wrong again you just push it aside and carry on?

This is why Peer review would buy you a little credibility.

So my advise is get a pro to look over all your work and let them tell you how far from the truth on a FACT for FACT basis goes, then take it from there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ronald Pegg is no more - passed away. RIP

I have to agree with the above post from Quaentum: Eddy you use certain things out of contence and swear by it. Then when PROVEN wrong, write that off as opinion and carry on with your theory. Then when PROVEN wrong again you just push it aside and carry on?

This is why Peer review would buy you a little credibility.

So my advise is get a pro to look over all your work and let them tell you how far from the truth on a FACT for FACT basis goes, then take it from there.

Now that would be good but he knows he won't have it agreed on.. And there goes one source of income

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that would be good but he knows he won't have it agreed on.. And there goes one source of income

Not sure if Eddy actually sells something with this? Can someone confirm ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if Eddy actually sells something with this? Can someone confirm ?

Read his web site at the cost of the books and the workshops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read his web site at the cost of the books and the workshops

I only did the test and already lost some IQ points just doing that. I didn't want to expose myself to the rest of the site. I kinda missed that :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give an example of how it is all interpreted, see the following. {pic}

This is referred to as a calf. This btw is also the size of the pics used.

Well....how to say this nicely, this is in fact the roman wolf that raised Remus and Romulus. See the below picture for comparison. {pic}

And that's just one example of the fallacy being perpetrated here. It's build on imagination and assumptions and then some.

The explanation for this is clearly stated on the ‘Test Introduction’ page. Here is a copy thereof (excluding the four presented pictures)…
Ancient Concepts and Understanding

The texts under examination were written between 603 BCE and 95 CE and were NOT in English.

The understanding and comprehension in those times by the writers were different to what we know now in the 21st century, so we have to put ourselves back in time in their place and use their limited levels of comprehension and understanding to grasp what they were reporting.

For example, in the Bible various forms of 'cattle' are mentioned.

When I think of a 'cow' I think of a black and white Dairy Cow. {pic}

BUT is my understanding of a bull, cow, or calf the same as what was alive in ancient times ?

No. The type of cattle roaming about in the Middle East were the ancestors to modern cattle. That earlier type became extinct in 1627 CE. Noted in Egyptian depictions and in the Bible and known by the Romans and Greeks (source) was the Wild-ox known as Aurochs

Bos primigenius. Here is a picture of one. {pic} Auroch bulls were mostly black. Mouse-over to see how a calf would look without the horns. {pic} A female auroch would have teats.

Is this why John (and others) have described the She-Wolf icon as being 'like a calf or ox' ?

Remember also, John says "like a calf" and not that it was a calf. {pic}

Thus what WE think the ancient writer was reporting - may not be what he was actually reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read it in it's entirety you can see that yes it does support what I have said which is not my interpretation but simple reading and comprehension of what was written.
Correct, it is not your interpretation (but your understanding of what you have been told).

You are citing the traditional KJV Bible interpretation which does not necessarily convey what the original writers were saying.

This is one of the main points of Pegg’s project.

In Rev 7:4 the words “and there were sealed” are words added during translation to ‘make it read’ better in English, with the word “sealed” being placed before the given number instead of where it was originally placed, after the number.

‘Making it read better in English’ has destroyed the original word order and context.

So by believing what your KJV Bible says, you are being misled.

In your posts you have changed the KJV text, dismissed sentence structure and ignored syntax.
Hold the bus.

Pegg (and myself) are using the original GREEK sentence word order and syntax that the Greek text presents. The original Greek texts were written in the fist century AD while the Old English KJV Bible is a 1611 AD translation that can be traced back through other previous translations (as someone earlier pointed out) and even back to the Latin Vulgate Bible of 405 AD (hence the use of Latin word meanings, as the Greek words were known in Latin 1200 years before the English words were ‘invented’).

The link above shows one internet example (of Rev 7:4).

I have personally checked out both the Hebrew and Greek sentence syntax from various books.

The Greek from ‘Interlinear Greek-English New Testament’, Berry, G.R., Baker Books, USA, 1997’ is the one I employ.

That publication confirms what the internet page presents.

I most certainly have ‘changed the KJV text, dismissed sentence structure and ignored syntax’ because it is wrong (in many cases)

Revelation7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
is saying that the time traveller (aka. angel) ‘had the seal’ and spoke (written as ‘cried with a loud voice’) these words ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’.

The time traveller had told John what he was going to be told and that he had to remember it (written as ‘sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’).

What was he going to have to remember ?

The ‘seals’ (‘of the servants of our God’). Plural, the ‘them’ as you point out.

In the following verses, still speaking, the time traveller relates this information.

7:4a And I heard the number of them which were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand.
here, John reports hearing the first piece of information relating to the first subject of 7:2 being ‘the seal (of the living God)’ with the words “And I heard the number of them which were sealed; an hundred and forty and four thousand”;

and continues with his religious explanation of the twelve lots of 12:00:00 numbers seen on screen as

7:4b sealed out of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 7:5 - 7:8 reference the other tribes and the 12 x 120000.
I have taken the ‘12 lots of twelve tribe’ part as being seen by John and him making the ‘tithe’ change on the number.

The 144,000 may be in a separate verse (7:4) but the use of the word and at the beginning of that verse indicates it is a continuation of 7:3 and ties "them which were sealed" into the the reference to servants. John is told the number of them which were sealed being 144,000 of all the tribes of the children of israel yet nowhere does he indicate that he is told or saw that it was 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes.
Good, we are getting somewhere.

You say that ‘nowhere does John say he saw the 12 x 1200000’. That seems correct.

You also say that ‘nowhere does John say he heard the 12 x 1200000’. But Yes he did.

YOU have linked the ‘them’ with the ‘servants’

7:4 says “and I heard the number of the sealed; 144,000; sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” then John writes down the 12 lots of 12000.

You have just provided me with a little piece of information that shows John heard the 12 lots of 12,000 numbers and not that he saw those numbers (and understood them).

As with the main file size, the time traveller, once tithing the 120000 numbers down to 12,000, told John the numbers and he has written it up as the ‘tribes of Israel, etc’.

I can see from your point of view that you want to tie the “them” to the “servants” (both plural) and are reading the verses as one long story.

Talking of plural, John does say “the sealed” (7:4) which also indicates plural.

Hence, the “servants” have two subjects told verbally to John by the time traveller: servant #1: (the main seal 'of the living God') is 144,000; servant #2: 12 lots of 12,000 (related in a religious manner by John and tied back to the religious understanding of the Old Testaments twelve tribes).

You have made unsupported statements about what John supposedly saw.
No. The evaluation test of the OP so far shows a 94 percent match of over 200 of John, Ezekiel, and Daniel’s descriptions to the contents of the Ancients cd-rom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read his web site at the cost of the books and the workshops

The workshops and printed books are presented on an associated Australian website and are not mentioned on the website associated with the OP.

Edited by Eddy_P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddy you lose something in translation. you see some words mean the same as others when translated.

For instance, in Africaans here in South Africa you say "Ya Nee" - direct translation is "Yes no" what it MEANS is maybe, or not sure.

So you cant take a word in Greek and translat it direcly into english without understnding the contentex in the manner it was intended, as it would really turn into rubbish.

Find a french writing or africaans or anything really find a word for word translator and change it into english and read what it says word for word. you will see that if you dont understant the actual meaning in what was said the translation wont make any sence.

Like you said Sealed in thier foreheades? I mean comeon what does that even mean, translate the entire sentance word for word from the greek an it would not make any sence, Im willing to bet on it as the end doesnt make sence.

So yes there are some substituted words maybe but they are there on purpose to make it less confusing not more.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The workshops and printed books are presented on an associated Australian website and are not mentioned on the website associated with the OP.

True but in the end you will point out it is written in the books or they can come to a workshop to learn more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The explanation for this is clearly stated on the ‘Test Introduction’ page. Here is a copy thereof (excluding the four presented pictures)…

And that still is a nice big load of nonsense. Even in the ancient days, everybody could make the difference between a wolf and a bovine. The below statement is correct to a degree, but using it the way you do is just misleading and insulting.

The understanding and comprehension in those times by the writers were different to what we know now in the 21st century, so we have to put ourselves back in time in their place and use their limited levels of comprehension and understanding to grasp what they were reporting.

A bovine (ancient ,extinct or not) and a wolf are not the same thing and never have been. I know about NO culture of any kind, that could not make the difference between the two. Even in a metaphorical sense that doesn't work.

BUT is my understanding of a bull, cow, or calf the same as what was alive in ancient times ?

No. The type of cattle roaming about in the Middle East were the ancestors to modern cattle. That earlier type became extinct in 1627 CE. Noted in Egyptian depictions and in the Bible and known by the Romans and Greeks (source) was the Wild-ox known as Aurochs

Bos primigenius. Here is a picture of one. {pic} Auroch bulls were mostly black. Mouse-over to see how a calf would look without the horns. {pic} A female auroch would have teats.

Is this why John (and others) have described the She-Wolf icon as being 'like a calf or ox' ?

Remember also, John says "like a calf" and not that it was a calf. {pic}

Thus what WE think the ancient writer was reporting - may not be what he was actually reporting.

Let me show you what a Bos Primigenius looks like compared to a modern cow. A tad bigger!

Aurochs_liferestoration.jpg

How can anybody mistake one for this ? Please do explain.

Scandinavian_grey_wolf_Canis_lupus_%28cropped%29.jpg

And don't give me the excuse : "but he said calf...", because from your own text it says "Is this why John (and others) have described the She-Wolf icon as being 'like a calf or ox' ?" Ox being a big animal with horns. The above foto = not a big animal with horns.

Had John described the icon in question, he would have said wolf, pure and simple. Trying to bend logic and reason around this one thing only proves it to be a load of BS, Pure and simple.

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had John described the icon in question, he would have said wolf, pure and simple.
You do not know that for sure. As you pointed out, the text states that the ancient writer said “like” not that it ‘was’.

A young black female Bos Primigenius calf without formed horns does look “like” the she-wolf icon from the Ancients cd-rom.

REV13_2.JPG

aurochc.jpg

How can anybody mistake one for this ? Please do explain.
Point 1. The ‘wolf’ you show does not look anything like the ‘She-wolf’ icon from the Ancients cd-rom (pictured above).

(You are comparing ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’.)

A young black female Bos Primigenius calf without formed horns does look “like” the she-wolf icon from the Ancients cd-rom.

Point 2. You have already acknowledged that I have explained this. It is just that you do not like my explanation. My explanation compared a young auroch calf (pictured above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not know that for sure. As you pointed out, the text states that the ancient writer said “like” not that it ‘was’.

A young black female Bos Primigenius calf without formed horns does look “like” the she-wolf icon from the Ancients cd-rom.

REV13_2.JPG

aurochc.jpg

Point 1. The ‘wolf’ you show does not look anything like the ‘She-wolf’ icon from the Ancients cd-rom (pictured above).

(You are comparing ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’.)

A young black female Bos Primigenius calf without formed horns does look “like” the she-wolf icon from the Ancients cd-rom.

Point 2. You have already acknowledged that I have explained this. It is just that you do not like my explanation. My explanation compared a young auroch calf (pictured above)

Eddy, I'm going to call the bull**** card. Put is any way you want your explanation is a load of crap of the highest order. Rather good quality but still crap. And the "comparing ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’" coming from you is rather funny.

Admit it, you can't make anything stick at all. I've taken your tests, cleverly made so that for some questions you still have to say YES, because the question is asked in a certain way. I've calculated that it is impossible to ever fall under the "Improbable but possible" threshold of 40 points. It's like the perfect setup to never be wrong. and I'm sorry but that is cheating, purely and simply.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got through reading this thread for the first time - ALL of the posts... I have a question for Mr. Eddy_P...

IIRC Several times you stated that John of Patmos glanced at the 386 computer screen after 'he crashed it' and saw the numbers 144,000... or some similar version of that statement...

How would he have known it was the numbers 144,000?.... By almost all accounts John of Patmos was either a person (self?) exiled to the island of Patmos by the edicts of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (sp?) - or the original Apostle John... in any case he would have written the books of Revelations sometime between 50 and 100 AD (or CE for those of us who get their noses out of joint over terminology :whistle: - jk)... At that time the Romans still used "Roman Numerals" for numbers.... The Greeks used letters of their alphabet as well - so did the Hebrews.... NO ONE USED THE HINDU-ARABIC DERIVED NUMERALS WE USE TODAY... How could he have understood the numbers?... Our current numbering system wasn't created until sometime around 500 AD...

Please explain....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, it is not your interpretation (but your understanding of what you have been told).

You are citing the traditional KJV Bible interpretation which does not necessarily convey what the original writers were saying.

This is one of the main points of Pegg’s project.

In Rev 7:4 the words “and there were sealed” are words added during translation to ‘make it read’ better in English, with the word “sealed” being placed before the given number instead of where it was originally placed, after the number.

‘Making it read better in English’ has destroyed the original word order and context.

So by believing what your KJV Bible says, you are being misled.

Hold the bus.

Pegg (and myself) are using the original GREEK sentence word order and syntax that the Greek text presents. The original Greek texts were written in the fist century AD while the Old English KJV Bible is a 1611 AD translation that can be traced back through other previous translations (as someone earlier pointed out) and even back to the Latin Vulgate Bible of 405 AD (hence the use of Latin word meanings, as the Greek words were known in Latin 1200 years before the English words were ‘invented’).

The link above shows one internet example (of Rev 7:4).

I have personally checked out both the Hebrew and Greek sentence syntax from various books.

The Greek from ‘Interlinear Greek-English New Testament’, Berry, G.R., Baker Books, USA, 1997’ is the one I employ.

That publication confirms what the internet page presents.

I most certainly have ‘changed the KJV text, dismissed sentence structure and ignored syntax’ because it is wrong (in many cases)

I used the KJV as a reference because of your post that indicated you used the KJV in part of your research not because it is one I myself use.

A couple of clarifications:

When you say you are using the original Greek structure, you are not referring to the original Greek documents from the first century as they don't seem to exist. There are manuscript fragments, such as P47 from the second century but the ones I have found online don't seem to cover Rev 7. So I believe you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus or something similar.

When you say "1200 years before English words were invented" is a reference to modern English.

That said let's continue. For reference purposes I will post the translation of the verses from the Codex Sinaiticus. You can find it here

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx . Another source I found where the Greek text is posted, followed by the English text on a verse by verse basis is one done by David Robert Palmer. It includes notes with Greek variants. You can find his work here http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf

7:1 And after this I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth nor on the sea nor on any tree.

2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

3 saying: Hurt not the earth nor the sea nor the trees, till we shall have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of those that were sealed; a hundred and forty-four thousand were sealed of every tribe of the sons of Israel:

5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand: of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand:

Sealed appears both before and after the 144,000. The semi-colon connects the two sentences together, the first indicating he heard the number and the second what the number was.

is saying that the time traveller (aka. angel) ‘had the seal’ and spoke (written as ‘cried with a loud voice’) these words ‘Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’.

The time traveller had told John what he was going to be told and that he had to remember it (written as ‘sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads’).

What was he going to have to remember ?

The ‘seals’ (‘of the servants of our God’). Plural, the ‘them’ as you point out.

The reference to angels as time travelers is an unsupported assumption. Saying that the term "till we shall have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads" is John being told that he had to remember what he was told is basically just altering the meaning of the sentence so that it will fit your theory. Them or in the case of the codex, those does not refer to the number of seals but the number sealed. There is difference in the two, and in reading it correctly it does not support that the seal is numbered 144,000 or that there there are 144,000 seals but the numbe, being the number of servants, were sealed.

In the following verses, still speaking, the time traveller relates this information.here, John reports hearing the first piece of information relating to the first subject of 7:2 being ‘the seal (of the living God)’ with the words “And I heard the number of them which were sealed; an hundred and forty and four thousand”;

and continues with his religious explanation of the twelve lots of 12:00:00 numbers seen on screen asI have taken the ‘12 lots of twelve tribe’ part as being seen by John and him making the ‘tithe’ change on the number.

Good, we are getting somewhere.

You say that ‘nowhere does John say he saw the 12 x 1200000’. That seems correct.

You also say that ‘nowhere does John say he heard the 12 x 1200000’. But Yes he did.

YOU have linked the ‘them’ with the ‘servants’

7:4 says “and I heard the number of the sealed; 144,000; sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” then John writes down the 12 lots of 12000.

Perhaps we are getting somewhere. In the second paragraph you indicate that it seems correct that John did not see the numbers. As such he would not have assigned a tithe to them. For reference, the 10% tithe was in the old testament only. The new testament only mentions tithing 4 times at most, there are no numbers and Jesus is upset that certain people put tithing higher in importance than what he was trying to teach. So at the time Revelation was written, it looks as though tithing had changed or was in the process of changing from obligatory to optional. Tithing also required that percentage to be given to someone (Their cut of the take so to speak). Something not possible when altering numbers.

As far as tithing as a way of altering numbers by 10%, there is no evidence I have found that corroborates that view. I did find an article talking about numbers and the seeming difficulty in getting them right where whole digits can be dropped seeming to make it match up to the 10%. The article can be found here

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrew_numbers.html

The verses following 7:4 that indicate the number sealed from each house are a list and the colon at the end of 7:4 ties them to 7:4 but they are not a continuation of that verse. Therefore, there is no indication he was told 12,000 from each house and may well have made the list based on an equal division of the 144,000 for the tribes on his own.

You have just provided me with a little piece of information that shows John heard the 12 lots of 12,000 numbers and not that he saw those numbers (and understood them).

As with the main file size, the time traveller, once tithing the 120000 numbers down to 12,000, told John the numbers and he has written it up as the ‘tribes of Israel, etc’.

As I have showed, the list, though tied into the verse concerning the 144,000, is not a continuation of that verse so can not be said that he was told those numbers for each house. I have also covered tithing, showing it wasn't tithing that accounted for the 10% in number change but the difficulties encountered when translating it from Hebrew

I can see from your point of view that you want to tie the “them” to the “servants” (both plural) and are reading the verses as one long story.

Talking of plural, John does say “the sealed” (7:4) which also indicates plural.

Hence, the “servants” have two subjects told verbally to John by the time traveller: servant #1: (the main seal 'of the living God') is 144,000; servant #2: 12 lots of 12,000 (related in a religious manner by John and tied back to the religious understanding of the Old Testaments twelve tribes).

It's not my desire to tie them together. They are tied together because of the sentence structure. The text indicates not to hurt the earth until the servants are sealed and John heard the number sealed. He then continues to exlain that the number sealed is 144,000 and adds a list of the numbers from each tribe. The sentence structure itself shows there were not just two servants sealed but 144,000. The one with the seal of the living God is not part of the servants as can be seen by him being called an angel and not a servant and that he refers to those to be sealed as servants. The fact that the Bible is a religious book means tbhat everything in it has or is a religious reference.

No. The evaluation test of the OP so far shows a 94 percent match of over 200 of John, Ezekiel, and Daniel’s descriptions to the contents of the Ancients cd-rom.

Since John does not indicate he was shown any of what is in the verses, and there is noadditional sources indicating he was shown anything, indicating he was shown anything is and remains to this time unsupported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Several times you stated that John of Patmos glanced at the 386 computer screen after 'he crashed it' and saw the numbers 144,000... or some similar version of that statement...

How would he have known it was the numbers 144,000?....

Hi Taun

This is explained on the website of the OP.

John himself says that he “heard” the number. The time traveller told him the rounded up data size number of the mediterr.exe file.

Here is a copy of the relevant parts…

Rev 7:2,4 "I saw another angel...having the seal of the living God.....I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000..."

Most Bibles have verse 7:4 written as "I heard the number of them which were sealed: there were sealed 144,000" but as you will see from the original Greek words below (from an Interlinear Transliteration source) this is not so.

The "seal" is numbered 144,000, not 'them of the tribes of the children of Israel' (the second part of the verse).

The words "there were sealed" are in italics and in the KJV Bible this means that they are added words. The second word "sealed" in the original manuscript is actually after the 144,000 number. Changing its position in the sentence and adding the other two words "there were" has changed the context from the 'seal of the living God' being 144,000 to inferring that number belongs to the 'tribes of the sons of Israel' mentioned later in the same verse.

REV7_4.JPG

In Revelation 7:2-8 John was told the numbers from the file manager window by one of the time travellers, which he then wrote down in the Greek equivalent words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another source I found where the Greek text is posted, followed by the English text on a verse by verse basis is one done by David Robert Palmer. It includes notes with Greek variants. You can find his work here http://bibletranslat...ans/revwgrk.pdf

Sealed appears both before and after the 144,000. The semi-colon connects the two sentences together, the first indicating he heard the number and the second what the number was……Saying that the term "till we shall have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads" is John being told that he had to remember what he was told is basically just altering the meaning of the sentence so that it will fit your theory.

Chapters and verses in the Bible are a modern addition.

“The original manuscripts did not contain the chapter and verse divisions in the numbered form familiar to modern readers.” Source:

http://en.wikipedia....es_of_the_Bible

Punctuation was added along with the chapters and verses.

Chapters:

Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based.

Verses:

The first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was Italian Dominican biblical scholar Santi Pagnini (1470–1541), but his system was never widely adopted. Robert Estienne created an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament which was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French. Estienne's system of division was widely adopted, and it is this system which is found in almost all modern bibles.

You say that

Sealed appears both before and after the 144,000. The semi-colon connects the two sentences together, the first indicating he heard the number and the second what the number was.

The semi-colon was added when the chapters and verses were arranged. This is why they appear where they do in the links you gave. Generally scholars and laypersons believe the chapters, verses, and punctuation to be original. They are not.

As the semi-colon was not an original Greek sentence mark, your claim that it ‘joins’ the two sections is misguided and unfounded.

As far as tithing as a way of altering numbers by 10%, there is no evidence I have found that corroborates that view.
’Tithing’ is the religious concept named and described in the Bible.

Ronald Pegg found it was used by the time travelers to encode the military and other numbers in the Bible told to ancient people in over the 1,000 format.

That part of Pegg’s work has not yet been released, so no, the evidence is not yet available to you.

Since John does not indicate he was shown any of what is in the verses, and there is noadditional sources indicating he was shown anything, indicating he was shown anything is and remains to this time unsupported.
Incorrect comments. John says…

Rev 1:1-2 "...he sent...his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record...of all things that he saw"

Rev 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen..."

Rev 5:1 "I saw in the right hand side...a book written within and on the backside, sealed with 7 seals..."

Rev 10:8 "...Go take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel..."

Haven’t you examined the extractions from the Book of Revelation and conducted the TEST from the OP ?

In his first hand personal account, a historical person named John, on Patmos Island in 95 CE relates how an Angel showed him visions and told him to write it all down. Those 'visions' came from a special book being held by the Angel, sealed with Seven Seals.

59 descriptions of that ‘Book’ and its contents (from Revelation 4:6-7, 5:1, 5:5,6, 6:1-8, 7:2, 7:4 and 11:1, 13:1-2,11, 21:2,10,12,15) have been matched to the Ancients cd-rom and its contents (at a match percentage of over 90).

This seems to very much support Ronald Pegg’s claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just quickly explain the Revelations 7:4 translation. Here's the Greek text:

καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

Ancient Greek is an inflected language, and as part of this inflection all nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (including participles, which are adjectives formed from a verbal stem) have endings that change to reflect differences of gender, number, and case (= how the word functions in the sentence).

So the discussion here is centered on "τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων", which is generally translated "of the sealed." But what does that mean, exactly? Let's examine it more closely. First of all, "ἐσφραγισμένων" isn't a noun, but rather an adjective. More specifically, it has a verbal root ("sphragis" meaning "to seal"), and we can see from the leading epsilon that it is denoting past time, while the -men- infix denotes that it's a passive participle, which together make it a perfect passive participle, which as mentioned previously is a verbal adjective. But we see in front of it "τῶν", the definite article ("the"), which means that this adjective is being used as a substantive (meaning it functions as a noun because the noun is implied and does not need to be stated). We know that "τῶν" goes with "ἐσφραγισμένων" both because of position and because their endings are the same, -ων. This ending denotes a genitive case and plural number--indicating that it is referring to multiple people as the implied noun.

This all gives us a literal translation of that two word phrase as "of those who were sealed", and with the "τὸν ἀριθμὸν" (which is an accusative singular, meaning it's a direct object) we get "the number of those (people) who were sealed."

And as to the confusion for the KJV translation, look at the Greek once again:

καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

So "esphagismenon" ("of those who were sealed"), 144000, "esphagismenoi" (-oi is the nominative plural masculine form, which confirms that we are talking about multiple people being sealed). This is why the KJV has "and there were sealed"--the word for "sealed" is used twice, and the editors of the KJV didn't read it with a punctuation between the number and "esphagismenoi", so they're literally just reading "144,000 (people) were sealed".

And this should serve as a practical warning that you can't just use a concordance to translate a text--you need to understand all of the underlying grammar of the language to properly put the words together.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there were no SEALS per say but rather a number of people sealed was 144 000?

Thanks for the input well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just quickly explain the Revelations 7:4 translation. Here's the Greek text:

καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

Ancient Greek is an inflected language, and as part of this inflection all nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (including participles, which are adjectives formed from a verbal stem) have endings that change to reflect differences of gender, number, and case (= how the word functions in the sentence).

So the discussion here is centered on "τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων", which is generally translated "of the sealed." But what does that mean, exactly? Let's examine it more closely. First of all, "ἐσφραγισμένων" isn't a noun, but rather an adjective. More specifically, it has a verbal root ("sphragis" meaning "to seal"), and we can see from the leading epsilon that it is denoting past time, while the -men- infix denotes that it's a passive participle, which together make it a perfect passive participle, which as mentioned previously is a verbal adjective. But we see in front of it "τῶν", the definite article ("the"), which means that this adjective is being used as a substantive (meaning it functions as a noun because the noun is implied and does not need to be stated). We know that "τῶν" goes with "ἐσφραγισμένων" both because of position and because their endings are the same, -ων. This ending denotes a genitive case and plural number--indicating that it is referring to multiple people as the implied noun.

This all gives us a literal translation of that two word phrase as "of those who were sealed", and with the "τὸν ἀριθμὸν" (which is an accusative singular, meaning it's a direct object) we get "the number of those (people) who were sealed."

And as to the confusion for the KJV translation, look at the Greek once again:

καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

So "esphagismenon" ("of those who were sealed"), 144000, "esphagismenoi" (-oi is the nominative plural masculine form, which confirms that we are talking about multiple people being sealed). This is why the KJV has "and there were sealed"--the word for "sealed" is used twice, and the editors of the KJV didn't read it with a punctuation between the number and "esphagismenoi", so they're literally just reading "144,000 (people) were sealed".

And this should serve as a practical warning that you can't just use a concordance to translate a text--you need to understand all of the underlying grammar of the language to properly put the words together.

It's something we have tried to tell him a few times already, "you can't just use a concordance to translate a text", but we were and apparently still are wrong.

Another thing I do start to find rather funny is that for someone who tells us not to rely on opinions or preconceptions, he does spend a awfull lot of time telling us he didn't come up with the discovery and the CD's, but Ronald Pegg did. I still think that he and Pegg are one and the same person at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.