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 1
Eddy_P

The religious GOD is a man-made idea

43 posts in this topic

The following was placed on another thread but was off topic there, so it has been transferred here. (Part 1)

The Australian researcher, Ronald Pegg, between 1996 and 2002 discovered evidence that "God" plus the associated Religious concepts were not based upon what we had been led to believe.

An 'omnipresent being', ie. the "God" of four of the world's religious groups (Hebrews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons) known through different names such as JHWH, God, Allah, and Jesus.

But there is a more fundamentally basic classification of this omnipresent being known as "God" who is also mentioned in earlier Middle Eastern religious stories as "The Creation God" - or the God of the Creation Story.

The "Creation" story is mentioned in the Old Testament in Genesis and involves the "God" of which we speak.

But checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'. So in the Bible where we see the word "God" written, it actually refers to just 'deities' (plural) - this is its primary language meaning. A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

So in the Creation Story, it is ordinary gods that are being related. It was not until the Creation Myth (which was spreading around the ancient Middle East) began to be perceived as a 'religious story', at which time the secondary meaning kicked in - being The Hebrew God (singular) - named elsewhere in the Old Testament as YHWH.

The use of the word "God" in the biblical Creation Story refers to 'gods' plural.

Then came Christianity, that through the Jesus Myth of the New Testament appeared to religiously explain this plural meaning of the Hebrew God.

You may note that I say "the Jesus Myth". I say this for the following reason:

On page 267 of the book The Atlantis Blueprint, (Rand Flem-ath and Colin Wilson, Little, Brown, and Company, Great Britain, 2000; ISBN 0-316-85313-5) it is reported that Pope Leo X, a contemporary of Henry VIII said; "It has served us well, this myth of Christ".

So we have a Pope knowing that the 'Jesus as God' stories are not true.

Finding this out upsets some people.

In defence of their knowledge that the "God" of the New Testament refers to the Triad of gods - The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit - people who believe what is written in their Bibles immediately quote 1John 5:7-8, saying that, because it is written in the Bible that "testify…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one…And there are three that testify on earth", this means that it is true that "God" refers to these three aspects - and thus confirms the original Hebrew plural meaning of God.

BUT what is written at 1John 5:7-8 is NOT original words.

In 1964 it was finally admitted by the Catholic Biblical Commission that the words 7- “testify…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"; 8-"And there are three that testify on earth:…and the” were an addition to 1John 5:7-8 in Jerome's Latin Bible, the 'Vulgate'.

The original words of 1 John 5:7-8 were "For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

The addition was not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translations prior to the 16th century, and was only found in the Roman Bible written since the 11th century.

This passage was called "the heavenly witnesses" and the addition became known as the “Johannine Comma.”

On page 1928 of the Eight Translation New Testament (Tyndale House Publishers Inc, Illinois, 1974) an account of a fourth century Spanish heretic producing these words, with Erasmus including them in a Greek manuscript, is cited.

So no Greek manuscript contained the extra words, and only the Latin Vulgate Bible did - until Erasmus rewrote the text (which was then used as a basis for the King James translation in 1611).

For some reason the Roman Christian Church in the 11th century added the extra words to make it appear that the plural word "God" of the Hebrew story was related to their god 'Jesus' and the 'Spirit'.

A deliberate addition by the Roman Church is still contained in the KJV Bible, with English speaking people since then believing that the Christian triad of gods is biblically correct. Unfortunately this concept is not correct, and now shows up the misinformation about the plural identity of the Hebrew 'God'.

Finding this out upsets some people.

In defence of their knowledge that "The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit" have always been "one" (ie. the omnipresent being herein under discussion) Christians quote the four Gospels as being witnesses to Jesus Christ and the Spirit.

BUT the Gospels are stories written from between 58 and 120 AD, by unknown authors. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were given later when the Romans were 'translating' the Greek manuscripts. (The original first century Greek manuscripts are no longer available.)

The first to write about the "Jesus Stories" was the Roman citizen, Paul around 40-50 AD.

It was the Roman Church that made the additions in the 11th century, and as Paul was Roman who was previously killing Christians, questions have to be asked such as "Are the stories told by Paul and the Gospels accurate ?" and "Was Jesus and the Spirit originally part of the triad, or is that made up too ?".

A look at religious history books easily answers the second question.

In 325 Constantine at Nicaea adopted the decree that Jesus is equal with God, the Father.

Then in 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that the Holy Ghost is qual to God and Jesus.

In 405 additions to the Greek Bible at 1John 5:7-8 were made to make this Trinity appear biblical.

So declarations concerning the Trinity were made up to four centuries after the original stories were told - with deliberate additions made to the Bible to affirm their decrees.

Summary

A previous Pope knew that the 'Jesus as God' stories are not true.

The second and third individual parts of the Trinity were decreed by man - and are therefore not biblical.

In 1964 the Catholic Biblical Commission admitted that the passage that confirms the Trinity concept is an addition.

This all means that the Christian claims that the Hebrew plural God can be explained away as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are false.

This leaves the original meaning of the Creation God as 'ordinary gods' (plural).

This also negates the belief of "an omnipresent being" (ie. one of the ancient Religious Gods) being the source for the ancient stories.

ie. there is no GOD (He only exists in the minds of people who have believed the stories told by the various religious Churches).

So if the ancient biblical prophet Moses who documented speaking to "God" and mentions him in the Creation narration was not talking about a religious GOD as we have come to believe - who or what was he describing and to what was he listening ?

Something took the attention of Moses, and it had such an impact that it made him write down what he saw and heard.

The Australian researcher Ronald Pegg has found the answer...

(to be continued in Part 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of "As the religious GOD is a man-made idea - what was Moses reporting ?

As unlikely as it sounds at first, Ronald Pegg from Australia has discovered that the imagery from the 1995 produced Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom has been documented in the Bible and other ancient texts. (For this to have happened time travel must somehow be involved.)

The "Creation Story" (where God is first mentioned) as told (although slightly differently) in various ancient stories and texts is an account of an ancient person viewing the sequence of imagery from this particular cd-rom.

The opening sequence includes a series of five 'gods' whose faces and forms fade in and out in the Sky above the Sea on the screen.

This is why the ancients referred to these "gods" also as spirits - they appear to fade in and out - like ghosts.

Moses (somehow) was shown the imagery from a modern cd-rom. But how, why ? - and is this really true ?

There were previously two possible explanations as to how modern cd-roms and information from certain history books were taken back to the past.

1).

At some time in our future when the technology becomes available, the first experimental time travel journey back to the past inadvertently spawned an ancient Middle Eastern religion. Subsequent attempts to correct this 'mistake' entailing further time travel back-steps have unintentionally produced the other ancient religions, as during each subsequent encounter the ancient people perceived the time traveller telling them about 'future history' as 'a messenger of the gods'.

As the stories told about these experiences passed through several generations before being written down into the documents we now know as 'ancient texts', various religions sprouted due to their lack of understanding of computer technology and the people being overwhelmed by the sudden appearance of a Time Traveller telling them about previous 'mistaken' religions. In several cases this future history has been incorporated into certain group's oral stories as if those events were of their own past history, and now appear to us as the past history of various religious groups.

2).

God's angelic messengers (one named as Gabriel in several ancient religious texts) took from the period around the year 2000 AD certain history books and multimedia cd-roms (and a computer to run them) back to the past and showed various ancient people (to whom we now refer as 'religious prophets') 'visions' of the future from the cd-roms and told them of future religious history from the history books.

But as there is no "God" there can be no associated "Angels" (as portrayed in religious terms), thus number 2) option is now excluded.

While modern cd-roms being described in the Bible is an outrageous idea to many who first come across Mr Pegg's discoveries, when they see the evidence for themselves, it often leaves them breathless.

When you read the words from your Bible and compare them to the pictures from the Ancients cd-rom - will they match ?

If not, then Ronald Pegg is wrong.

If they do, then the religious version of history is not correct.

I have checked this out myself - and the pictures DO match to biblical descriptions.

On the PPHC Study Group website there are a series of pages that compare biblical descriptions with cd-rom pictures.

What we have been led to believe was GOD refers to the five faces of gods from the Introduction sequence.

The SPIRIT refers to the white Sailboat cursor that flits around the screen like a ghost in the air.

The LAMB refers to the outline shape of the Mediterranean Sea from the Map Page, with the stories of Jesus being accounts of specific imagery seen from the various presentations.

In the Member Area a sheet of extracted descriptions from many ancient texts can be downloaded and printed, then compared to the

pictures from the "ANCIENTS CD-ROM Review & Criticism" page.

From the home page http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au (after viewing the Quick Intro section) make your way to the Member Area in the WEBSITE section after "Logging On". I suggest that you progress slowly through the whole website, as it explains some of the seven years of research done by Mr Pegg - and conclusively shows from where each biblical character, such as God and the Sprit were derived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind showing me a link to the Strongs dictionary that states that God just means "many deities"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, the first post was informative, and sounded sincere.

The second post, however.................

Is merely a re-hash of Eddy P's earlier posts pointing to this website he is so desparate to shill. Time travelling bible salesmen?!?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not believe what I am reading here. WTF does a CD-ROM have to do with Moses. What he played a Cd-ROM on Mt Sinai!? Get REAL!

And, I hate to tell you this but time travel does not now, nor will it probably EVER exist. This is just too stupid for words.

The 'pictures matching the Biblical texts' are from people reading Biblical texts and making a PICTURE of it. Lots of people read the Bible you know. Artists too. One should keep that in mind. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mind showing me a link to the Strongs dictionary that states that God just means "many deities"?

705301[/snapback]

To discover the original meanings of the words from the 1611 King James Bible I use the printed book version of Strong's Concordance as modern electronic versions have been updated with newer meanings to represent our modern use of language and thus may have inadvertently changed the original meanings - and therefore may not represent what was originally intended.

Resource: Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers, USA, latest edition 1996.

.

'gods' in the ordinary sense - not "many deities".

Physically checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'.

A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

The primary meaning is 'gods' (as in general deities) - it is the plural of deity.

Edited by Eddy_P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mind showing me a link to the Strongs dictionary that states that God just means "many deities"?

705301[/snapback]

To discover the original meanings of the words from the 1611 King James Bible I use the printed book version of Strong's Concordance as modern electronic versions have been updated with newer meanings to represent our modern use of language and thus may have inadvertently changed the original meanings - and therefore may not represent what was originally intended.

Resource: Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers, USA, 1996.

.

'gods' in the ordinary sense - not "many deities".

Physically checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'.

A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

The primary meaning is 'gods' (as in general deities) - it is the plural of deity.

705326[/snapback]

It all just depends on the context in which the word is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly do not believe what I am reading here. WTF does a CD-ROM have to do with Moses. What he played a Cd-ROM on Mt Sinai!? Get REAL!

people read the Bible you know. Artists too. One should keep that in mind. thumbsup.gif

705316[/snapback]

laugh.gifrofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poster owns the site?

Well Mr_P, I must comend you then. Despite what you lack in proving that Sinai was a portal to time-travelling CD-ROM players 'playing God', what you have done, in quite immense detail, is prove that the prophecies of the Bible have actually occured. I'm going to guess that wasn't intentional...

I'm also guessing you weren't aware that the Hebrews, long before Romans or Constantine, had 'the Holy Spirit' which they called the 'Shekinah' and is female in gender. The word Elohim is gender, in plural male, and singular female. God and Jesus, the male, the Skekinah/Holy Spirit female. Elohim I'm sure you're aware IS the word used in Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eddy P. thumbsup.gif

Names mean a heck of a lot but in the mean time my name is Mr exorcist, don't smile now some of us have a terrible sense of humour...

Any way i have read what you have given but i would like to share a little fact that life has shown me and Science has shown me to... I don't no if you would agree but many times what a HUMAN being writes or say's can most of the time be full of code, by that i mean as your examining and finding out various things about anything you can actually miss the answer even though it's in your looking at you in your face.... Let me explain ( By the way i am not an expert but i have however been gifted enough to see,and understand both the supernatural, Paranormal and the Physical world we live in and like ones self study and have studied various materials over lets say many , many years) Now were was i ???? ...oh, yes !

i was going to explain about what your findings have uncovered.... If i may let me quote you you wrote the following .....

But there is a more fundamentally basic classification of this omnipresent being known as "God" who is also mentioned in earlier Middle Eastern religious stories as "The Creation God" - or the God of the Creation Story.

The "Creation" story is mentioned in the Old Testament in Genesis and involves the "God" of which we speak.

But checking the original meaning of this word "God" in the lexicon of Strong's Concordance, we find that Hebrew word 430 is a plural word and means 'gods' in the ordinary sense. It comes from word 433 which means 'a deity'. So in the Bible where we see the word "God" written, it actually refers to just 'deities' (plural) - this is its primary language meaning. A secondary religious meaning is given as "specifically used of the supreme God", with third and fourth meanings of "occasionally applied by way of deference to 'magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative; such as 'judges' and angels".

So in the Creation Story, it is ordinary gods that are being related. It was not until the Creation Myth (which was spreading around the ancient Middle East) began to be perceived as a 'religious story', at which time the secondary meaning kicked in - being The Hebrew God (singular) - named elsewhere in the Old Testament as YHWH.

Your right and i agree totally 100% with you but i hope you don't mind me pointing out what you have not wrote and mentioned....The lexicon of Strong's Concordance, is not the only concordance in the whole Planet and if you really want to do a deeper study ( Not saying you have not by the way ) You might also need to take a look at other material... but any way enough of that this is not what i wanted to bring to your attention, rather this that ISLAM , JEW'S and CHRISTIANITY all do not have everything in common as you have not pointed out. CHRISTIANITY is the only faith that says that JESUS or using the correct AMARAIC name YESHUAH and GOD or as you put it YHWH are although two people/ Spirits that they are actually both also ONE/ THE SAME. And if that maybe the case then have you looked at the possibility that the other person or as you put it deity could acctually be YESHUAh ? It says in the GENESIS account and in JOHN 1 to 17 it says this

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

John 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

John 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

John 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Ellis, neither that prophet?

John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

John 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

John 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

John 1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jon: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

John 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence newest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

John 1:50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

You are right in the sense that it was not just one person but i think that you might be interested to find out why the JEWISH and ISLAMIC faiths HAVE A BIG ISSUES aknowlaging that YESHUAH was the Messiah and the THE CREATOR HAD A SON

PLEASE NOTE : No!!!! i am not a fanatic or want to convert you in to some thing you are not or have any form or agenda in doing so Just a individual like yourself HUMAN.... I HOPE ? please get back even if you think i am wasting your time it would be interesting to know .. many thanks P.S. Sorry about the spelling mistakes

post-20218-1120057686_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not accusing anything here, so don't go all postal on me or anything, k tongue.gif but does it seem that Mr Exorcist and Eddy_P have very similar posting styles?

All the best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All religions have their creation storys a way to give meaning to that which is unknown and unseen. Religion appears to be at the level of debating which story is the right and true story, Which God is the "right" God. Rekigion has become a commodity, a brand name. There is wisdom in all the creation storys, if you are really looking, Maybe the question should be why do Humans need to break things down into right and wrong????Maybe we've made these things up to define the material and ourselves. Maybe we are both right and wrong, do we not live in a relative world??????

It has been said that if you don't see God in the profane and the profound, your missing half the story. God is in he laughter and the sadness in the bitter and the sweet, there is divine purpose and divine prescence in everything. Your life should show you that, think about the saddest moment what was the turning point was it seeing the perfection in it???????? Namaste Sheri berri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PROVOCATION DOSE NOT = WISDOM + 2SD HAND MAN MADE KNOWLEDGE = ACCUSING SPIRITS

I'm not accusing anything here, so don't go all postal on me or anything, k tongue.gif but does it seem that Mr Exorcist and Eddy_P have very similar posting styles?

QUESTION BET I COULD FIND SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM SIMILAR TO YOUR STYLE TOO , AND IF I DID THEN WHAT WOULD THAT GIVE YOU ????

A SENSE OF PRIDE MAYBE ????

PRIDE = THE FALLEN ONE

Who the Son has set free is free indeed Also Satan accuses the SAINTS b4 the TRONE of the CREATOR ....Hint, Hint .

No chapter No verse ( WHY ? The Son's WOrds are not restricted by time or space )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laugh.gif Hey Ashley, now you know how i reacted when you provided that dinosaurs from angel-human hybrids mating with reptiles story!

rofl.gifrofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hyperactive, your avatar... Jiggle Jiggle Jiggle Jiggle... so... mesmerizing... blink.gifgrin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
laugh.gif Hey Ashley, now you know how i reacted when you provided that dinosaurs from angel-human hybrids mating with reptiles story!

rofl.gif  rofl.gif

706836[/snapback]

OMG hyper. That picture of yours is funny as hell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that chick is hot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup! I agree. A totally man-made idea! No God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes Hyper, I can just imagine. But mine comes from texts, not CD-Roms on mountaintops purely out of someone's very explansive sci-fi imagination including time travel.

Your umm, Avatar is...interesting.....and Funi.....Clone Wars getting jiggy with it...uh is this becoming a trend here? lol blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amalgamut said (in relation to the primary and secondary meanings of the Hebrew words as given in Strong's Lexicon)

It all just depends on the context in which the word is used

Yes it does.

The English meanings and therefore the contemporary religious Stories told about the Bible are from the context of the secondary religious meanings and not the primary meanings. ie. past religious scholars have interpreted and translated the words to fit in with the Roman Church's ideas of the 1st to 4th Centuries.

Ronald Pegg has used the original primary meanings and found that the Bible was originally telling a quite different narration.

- - - - -

Ashley-Star*Child said

I'm also guessing you weren't aware that the Hebrews, long before Romans or Constantine, had 'the Holy Spirit' which they called the 'Shekinah' and is female in gender. The word Elohim is gender, in plural male, and singular female.

Yes. The reason the Hebrews acknowledged the Holy Spirit in the female gender (singular) is that the "gods" that are first seen in the Introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom, has, as its first floating 'spirit's head' that fades in then out, the Head of the female Egyptian Nefertiti.

The first spirit they see is a female 'god'.

The remaining four 'floating heads' (that also fade in and out like ghosts) are male.

The Hebrews in their use of the word "Elohim" have exactly described what they saw on the computer's screen - one female (singular) and many male (plural) gods.

This is the primary meaning of Hebrew word 430 - deities in the ordinary sense: one female, four male.

- - - - -

Ashley-Star*Child said

Despite what you lack in proving that Sinai was a portal to time-travelling CD-ROM players 'playing God'
Hasn't anyone noticed that a geographical location for the biblical Mount Sinai has not been found after over 3,000 years of looking, there is no evidence of the biblically described Exodus in other history books of the time, and contemporary Egyptian records do not mention Moses in Egypt.

So we have no physical proof that Moses, Mount Sinai, nor the Exodus actually occurred - except what is written in the Bible.

The reason for this (if you had read Mr Pegg's work in full) is due to the fact that "Going up Mount Sinai" refers to running the cursor up the orange mountain from the Greek menu page from the Ancients cd-rom, and that the "Glory of the Lord" refers to the various active icons that spring up when passed over by the cursor. These appear individually as a shaded area in a brilliant white bordered box.

Moses (or the writer who is known by that name) has faithfully described what he saw. He saw the glory of the gods up the mountain: a brilliant white bordered shadowy box.

The burning bush and the voice of God are from a second cd-rom that was shown to the ancient people, where the 'burning bush' represents the middle picture from a Multimedia Maps presentation while the voice heard is that of the male narrator.

The name of God when told (as told in the story of Moses) is at a point in the presentation when letters on the screen appear that when pronounced, sound like Yh-Wh.

.

All this will be very peculiar to you, as it was to me when it was first told to me back in 1998. It went against everything I was taught at Church.

But since then I have purchased a KJV Bible and Strong's Concordance (book versions) plus the cd-roms, and physically compared each word and sound described in the Bible to the sounds, words, and images seen in the cd-rom sequences.

They are where and when Mr Pegg said they would be -somehow, the words of the Bible ARE describing images from the cd-roms.

- - - - -

Sheri berri said

All religions have their creation storys
Yes they do, but Mr Pegg has found that they all are quoting the same SOURCE.

That source is a group of three modern cd-roms (that somehow have ended up being seen in the past by who we now call 'prophets and seers' - and story tellers).

- - - - -

Ashley-Star*Child also said

What you have done, in quite immense detail, is prove that the prophecies of the Bible have actually occurred
Well, Yes, thankyou. But I can not take the credit. I am only quoting the research and discoveries made by the Queensland researcher, Ronald Pegg. He was the one between 1996 and 2002 who put it all together.

Since 2002 the PPHC Study Group has been examining and evaluating his work very carefully, with the websites and News Reports to which I have previously referred being the results of our five years of study.

The Daniel and Revelations prophecies (just to mention a few) of which you speak can be found on the http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au/prophecies website.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was said that

The 'pictures matching the Biblical texts' are from people reading Biblical texts and making a PICTURE of it. Lots of people read the Bible you know. Artists too. One should keep that in mind
Fair comment, BUT…

Ronald Pegg from Australia has discovered that ancient texts (not just the Bible) contain exact descriptions of the 1995 produced Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom.

When at first the Old Testament descriptions are pointed out as matching to the cd-rom images, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon Ezekiel and Daniel's descriptions".

When at first the New Testament descriptions are pointed out, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon Paul, Mark and John's descriptions".

When the ancient Babylonian descriptions are pointed out, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon their descriptions".

When the Koran descriptions are pointed out, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon Mohammed's descriptions".

When the Book of Mormon descriptions are pointed out, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon Lehi's descriptions".

When the Atlantis descriptions are pointed out, most people say "the cd-rom was based upon Plato's descriptions".

When the descriptions of Nostradamus are pointed out, most people just turn back to their own little world of limited understanding.

When the......

I could keep going for a while.

Therefore the cd-rom can NOT be based upon any one of the descriptions in any one ancient text.

Many of the ancient text descriptions appear after a documented encounter with Gabriel (the name given to the time traveller) who apparently showed the ancient person the pictures and told of modern history from the Ancients cd-rom (and other modern history books).

The next stage of study is to evaluate the implications of this discovery , plus all the other perplexing things found by Mr Pegg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr exorcist wrote

The lexicon of Strong's Concordance, is not the only concordance in the whole Planet and if you really want to do a deeper study …You might also need to take a look at other material...
There is a good reason why Mr Pegg utilizes Strong's Concordance from the mid 1800s (but that will take us off topic).

In my experience, most modern lexicons and dictionaries have been edited to only show the secondary religious meanings. By this I mean the newer electronic versions available on-line do not show the original primary meanings where they seem 'not to fit' with the flow of the religious story.

This is why when people are challenging Mr Peg's quotes from the book version of Strong's Concordance, they can not find the same meanings, and thus they conclude that he is incorrect (without realizing that it is in fact their resources that have been changed).

- - - - -

You also state

You might be interested to find out why the JEWISH and ISLAMIC faiths HAVE A BIG ISSUES aknowlaging that YESHUAH was the Messiah and the THE CREATOR HAD A SON
I believe that they have grounds to dispute that Jesus was the Messiah and that God did not have a Son, because a Pope said that the Jesus Myth has served them well.

On page 267 of the book The Atlantis Blueprint, (Rand Flem-ath and Colin Wilson, Little, Brown, and Company, Great Britain, 2000; ISBN 0-316-85313-5) it is reported that Pope Leo X, a contemporary of Henry VIII said; "It has served us well, this myth of Christ".

- - - - -

Mr exorcist also wrote

to bring to your attention, rather this that ISLAM , JEW'S and CHRISTIANITY all do not have everything in common as you have not pointed out
You are now talking in religious terms. Religion is a long way from what the Bible's words are really saying. It is the ideas of religion that are different in each of the religious groups you mentioned, but the SOURCE of their stories is the same.

I am not studying religion, but the source and origin of the stories told before they were portrayed in religious terms by religious people who had religious agenda. Take note that it is these same people, the 'religious scholars' who have 'amended' the meanings in modern versions of Strong's Concordance to make the meanings fit in with their own beliefs.

One of my current studies is of the first person reported encounters with the messenger named Gabriel, and not with second and third hand after the fact enhanced stories told by people years (even decades later) who said they were witnesses to something.

To reply to your lengthy story commencing with "two people/ Spirits that they are actually both also ONE/ THE SAME" and mentioning the "Lamb of God" as written by John:

Genesis chapter One is a description of the Introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom.

GOD = the gods of this introduction sequence (as explained in an earlier post).

SPIRIT = the brilliant white animated sailboat cursor that flits around the screen like a ghost blown by the wind (of the red windrose compass).

When John says "Behold the Lamb of God" in 1:36 he is faithfully describing what he sees. He is reporting seeing the shape of a Lamb on the computer's screen. The coastal outline of the Mediterranean Basin from the Map Page is in the form of a Lamb with its front and rear legs separately tied together (ready for sacrifice) with the basin its body and the top right sea its head and ears. Look at a map of the Mediterranean yourself - you will see the same Lamb (as did the Hebrews as reported in the OT).

The stories of Jesus as reported in the Gospels are accounts of the various pictures seen throughout the various presentations from the Ancients cd-rom.

Evidence of much of this can be found in the Member Area of the http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au website where you can view slide shows and view images from the Ancients cd-rom and compare them with the Bible's words for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $64 dollar question:

Eddy P, what exactly is your relationship to this Ronald Pegg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Ed, I just don't buy into that. 'ancient texts describe exactly what's seen on the CD-ROM'. How stupid, exactly do you think people are? Anyone can research ancient texts and make pictures of it on a CD-Rom. Ancient people did not see a CD-Rom playing from the sky. rolleyes.gif

Now, you say Mt Sinai doesn't exist. Mt Hermon, noted as a landing place for the fallen angels in Enoch most definantly DOES exist, and is a major skiing destination today. It's also the tallest mountain in the region. And apparently, Sinai has been fond in Saudi Araba which, as waas said in Exodus, was then Midian.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm

The $64Million answer. Mr Eddy P, IS Mr Pegg. You can write that out in queque, money order, cash. Hell I'll even accept PayPal grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA! I said $64.00 dollar, not 64 million!. (BTW, the check is in the mail.....)

grin2.gif

So I'm not the only one who thinks "Eddy P" and "Ronald Pegg" are one and the same?

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.