Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Marion Jenis

The Antichrist and the Number 666

171 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Advenix
Posted (edited)
On 6/7/2018 at 1:10 AM, danydandan said:

Isn't this all irrelevant as the original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

In particular the U and V interchange? And that C and T thing is also irrelevant. As the Hebrew for Jesus is Yeshua, Greek Iesous. So unless the writers of the Bible predicted that it would be translated into a language they probably didn't know and the actual letters that didn't exist came into existence, which is rediculous. The whole thing is crazy. Spend your time on more fruitful fields of research.

It's funny to see that you don't give God the slightest consideration; that is, to his existence. Too bad that you didn't include an example of that suggested fruitful activity. You may be in the wrong place, or are we really in Sunday school here?

There is a continuous reason to God's lamentation. Just open the Bible and read...

Such a request would create a great deal of uncertainty in a person not quite familiar with text in the Bible, but if the request comes from God and concerns modern Man, that person is expected not to think the way the folks of the past ages did; the way that denied them electricity and powerful pharmaceuticals. Yet, the modern Man, in what appears to be disturbing numbers, continues to have hard time to decide what to read - what passage to choose.

Monotheistic system of belief stresses the concept of uniqueness - there is only one god - and that means there is, or should be, only one passage in the Bible, which stands in its significance above all the rest. Well, which one is it?

Man shouldn't regress to the point of trying to figure that out the way it would be customary in the past, like two hundred years ago; he should use the clue in Revelation 22:13 instead and consider opposites. If God asks someone to open the Bible, that person should think in the terms of opposites and take into account not only OPEN, but CLOSE as well. However, if that person couldn't come up with an applicable difference between the closed Bible and the opened Bible, as loosely clued by John 1:1, he or she would be better of sticking with the incomprehensible way of traditional dogmatic interpretation supplied by the Church. And yet, it is so easy...

Closed Bible: BIBLE
Opened Bible: B I B L E

Unfortunately, there are four openings in the opened "Bible" and you need only one opening to choose the unique passage. What to do? That problem requires a logical transformation and that was something Adam of Paradise failed to do during his testing. If God asked contemporary Adam, he couldn't muster this description of the Bible:

The Bible = "66 books"

Yes, the modern Bible is indeed a collection of 66 books, and the defining term follows:

The Bible = 66

By substituting the Bible with 66, there is now only one way to open it.

Closed Bible: 66
Opened Bible: 6 6

Now put a colon between 6 and 6, like a bookmark, and you reduce the number of passages to choose from.

6:6 = "Chapter 6, Verse 6 of some book in the Bible"

The selection of the book is again guided by the concept of one supreme deity. Since 1 = "one," God expects that modern Man selects the 1st book of the Bible; that is, Genesis.

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Genesis 6:6

Does anyone wonder about God lamenting heavily when, for example, he sees Man's reaction to the following opposites?

Birth: John Doe.
Death: John Doe.

The birth and the death are very significant opposites, but Man treats them as equal, as there is no apparent change in "John Doe"! One would expect that modern Man notes the special bigger letters and their position in the name and adjust them accordingly. Using different name, the logical adjustment is this:

Birth: Jesus Christ
Death: jesuS chrisT

But according to some of Jesus' associates, he didn't die like an ordinary person, but went through a miraculous rebirth to become "the Son of God."

Was it true?

There is no way of finding out but to naturally extend the death/ending letters S and T.

S --> T --> U

It is apparent that Jesus found himself in a U-state after he expired. In other words, he was on his way to everlasting absence caused by his death, but he took a U-turn and came back to life. Since a U-turn is a turn in opposite direction, and here, God compares himself to opposites saying, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

Jesus had therefore a similar "genetic makeup" as God, and yes, Jesus is LOGICALLY related to God. And that's a quite different argument from a mere assertion or tendency to believe.

If this cannot be understood, then there is no point in interpreting the follow up U --> V.

The Church has reduced God into a deity whose mental capacity was just good enough for conversing with the inhabitants of the ancient world.

Well, the boys in the Vatican are heading for a surprise...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advenix
formatting
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
jaylemurph

You do understand you can't have an argument that uses both magic/God and reason, right? Once you start to let in magical thinking, intellect and reason become useless tools.

--Jaylemurph

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

That u could mean... u-turn.

or possibly “u-kalile” and that was what what Jesus’ favourite instrument was.

or perhaps “u-fo” and that was what Jesus flew to heaven in.

or even “u-crazy”.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 hours ago, Advenix said:

If God asks someone to open the Bible, that person should think in the terms of opposites and take into account not only OPEN, but CLOSE as well.

WTF?

This is a totally illogical and nonsensical statement. 

If I said to you: "Water is wet", should you "think in terms of opposites" and believe water is dry?

I don't understand why people feel the need to 'encode' their holy books. If there is,, in fact, a god who transcribe "his word", then it should fecking well be in plainspeak (to quote Orwell), not some esoteric, nonsensical word salad!

And if, as some may say, the early believers did encode there scriptures (to keep the gentiles** unaware), then that cypher has been lost to history and the only statements we have MUST be taken at face value.

 

gentile: used as per definition 2 

1 often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew
2 : heathen, pagan
3 often capitalized : a non-Mormon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
12 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

WTF?

This is a totally illogical and nonsensical statement. 

If I said to you: "Water is wet", should you "think in terms of opposites" and believe water is dry?

I don't understand why people feel the need to 'encode' their holy books. If there is,, in fact, a god who transcribe "his word", then it should fecking well be in plainspeak (to quote Orwell), not some esoteric, nonsensical word salad!

And if, as some may say, the early believers did encode there scriptures (to keep the gentiles** unaware), then that cypher has been lost to history and the only statements we have MUST be taken at face value.

 

gentile: used as per definition 2 

1 often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew
2 : heathen, pagan
3 often capitalized : a non-Mormon

Sounds like I'm a #1. And you know what? I can read the Bible just as it is, enjoy it, and find meaning in it without resorting to word salad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
18 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sounds like I'm a #1. And you know what? I can read the Bible just as it is, enjoy it, and find meaning in it without resorting to word salad.

Yeah, but if you read it upside down and backward, it's SO cool to read about how Paul McCartney died.

Harte

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne

and if you play Abbey Road backwards, it says  Liah ot Natas!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Does it also say "Able was I, ere I saw Elba?"

Harte

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

Head hurts after reading that. Response is not required. I love when people say THE Bible, rather than the the Bible they are using. Considering there are around 400 different versions and thousands of different translations it would be beneficial so we are all starting on the same plane. Most importantly not every version of the Bible has 66 books. For example the actual Bible used by Catholics have 73 books, while most Protestant Bibles have 66.

There is cherry picking, then there Cherry Picking but then there is CHERRY PICKING.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advenix
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

WTF?

This is a totally illogical and nonsensical statement. 

If I said to you: "Water is wet", should you "think in terms of opposites" and believe water is dry?

I don't understand why people feel the need to 'encode' their holy books. If there is,, in fact, a god who transcribe "his word", then it should fecking well be in plainspeak (to quote Orwell), not some esoteric, nonsensical word salad!

 

You have obviously misunderstood the point giving your water is wet/dry" example. You don't form an opposite in order to BELIEVE that water is dry; you form an opposite in order to ASSUME that water is dry and that only in case someone launches a hypothesis that water is dry. Once you form an opposite, you can put the idea of dry water into the frame of reality and see how it behaves. You essentially employ the tools that are used in the  proof by contradiction:

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition. It starts by assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

If there is an example of a word salad, then the Bible is a standout. Instead of plainly explaining to the ancients who is he, God says that he is Alpha and Omega. And the scholars are still not 100% sure who was the dude known by the notorious number of beast 666. Not to mention Ezekiel's insane visions... If the text in the Bible was plain and concise, there would be no boxing match between the Catholics and the Protestants, for example.

The Scriptures' variety of interpretations are only good enough for believing in God existence, but fall short for assuming that God does exists. In that case, you need to know who the real God could be and biblical blah-blah-blahs surely won't do the job. That's why you need a defining term(s) by converting God's biblical description into a code number. God made it purposely easy, as he describes himself in terms that you can easily convert into a number or numbers, thus avoiding the 666-or-616 problem.  Alpha and Omega are Greek letters - not Latin nor Hebrew.

The Church has been lying to the people in order to usurp and keep power. The evidence of that is beginning to emerge. Of course, evidence is only good enough if understood and accepted, so the end of the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't come anytime soon.

 

Edited by Advenix
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 6/9/2018 at 7:58 PM, Advenix said:

It's funny to see that you don't give God the slightest consideration; that is, to his existence. Too bad that you didn't include an example of that suggested fruitful activity. You may be in the wrong place, or are we really in Sunday school here?

There is a continuous reason to God's lamentation. Just open the Bible and read...

...

The selection of the book is again guided by the concept of one supreme deity. Since 1 = "one," God expects that modern Man selects the 1st book of the Bible; that is, Genesis.

The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Genesis 6:6

Does anyone wonder about God lamenting heavily when, for example, he sees Man's reaction to the following opposites?

Well, yes.  I wonder.  The deity of the Bible is supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  How, then, can he be surprised/lament over anything humans do.  Either he absolutely knows the future (and set us up to be a clockwork disappointment to fill Hell with souls for some reason) or he absolutely doesn't know the future and is therefore not omnipotent or omniscient.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

Me, if I believed in god, I'd think he'd lament more about the trivial and anti-factual theories in threads like this when he went to the trouble of creating fully functional brains for our species. 

--Jaylemurph

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advenix
Posted (edited)
On 6/9/2018 at 6:54 PM, jaylemurph said:

You do understand you can't have an argument that uses both magic/God and reason, right? Once you start to let in magical thinking, intellect and reason become useless tools.

--Jaylemurph

 

But you can try to take a sample from the history and try to instill some drops of critical thinking into the mind of folks who needlessly believe outdated views of the Church, while you preserve the notion of the existence of God. But some folks like it the old-fashioned way, and so there is no point in trying to take it away from them. They are usually not equipped with analytic mind anyway, so they have hard time to understand variety of logical transformations and the need for generalization.

The folks in Harvard, or Princeton, treats identities as A=A, or B=B, without bothering to explain the domain, and so

A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A....

The reason why God was able to get from Alpha all the way to Omega (Revelation 22:13) was a true description of Alpha:

Alpha = "letter"

The problem is that human mind cannot easily distinguish between a definition and description, so it finds the following transitiveness a contradiction:

If A=letter and B=letter, then A=B?

or

5 = "number"
3 = "number"

If 5=number and 3=number, then 5=3?

Obviously, there is a difference between 5=number and 5="number." The latter is a description, not a definition. Descriptions generalize terms, so you can, for example, get the evolution of different species going:

A=B=C=D= . . . =X=Y=Z.

If you set Alpha="letter," you can take it all the way to Omega, because ("letter")=("letter").

Here is an example of pure magical thinking: There is substantial material evidence speaking for the evolution theory. Therefore God doesn't exist.

It can't get more fallacious than that.

Edited by Advenix
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advenix
On 6/10/2018 at 12:46 AM, danydandan said:

Head hurts after reading that. Response is not required. I love when people say THE Bible, rather than the the Bible they are using. Considering there are around 400 different versions and thousands of different translations it would be beneficial so we are all starting on the same plane. Most importantly not every version of the Bible has 66 books. For example the actual Bible used by Catholics have 73 books, while most Protestant Bibles have 66.

There is cherry picking, then there Cherry Picking but then there is CHERRY PICKING.

The different number of books of the Bible that the Protestants and the Catholics use is another evidence of the failure of monotheism. That means MONOtheism - there should be only one kind of the Bible for the Christians.

God himself made clear on two occasions that the 73-book Bible, which is used by the Roman Catholic Church, is unacceptable. I have already mentioned one instance:

66 = "sixty-six"

6:6 = "not sixty-six"

If not sixty-six (books), then... The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled... (seeing the pope standing on the 73-book-long Bible trying to reach all the way up on the upper shelf.)
Genesis 6:6

The problem is that the mind of God's creation is not that flexible and so God came up with another instance. The second instance takes into account the fact that there is an agreement between the Protestants and the Catholics regarding the composition of The New Testament - in both cases, it is a collection of 27 books. So the difference lies in the number of books in the first part - The Old Testament: 39 books(Protestants) vs 46 books(Catholics).

And so, we have two kind of Bibles comprising 66 books and 73 books each. Which is the one that God prefers to sustain the MONO philosophy behind Christianity?

Well, we don't know, for God's mind is said to work mysterious ways. Moreover, God's mind is omnicient and infinitely exceeds the capacity of the human mind. In other words, if God explained to us the criterion of his choice, even Albert Einstein wouldn't comprehend the logic that God used to set his preference. That's the reason why God tried to make the argument as simple as possible. He considered 66 books and 73 books. Since 66 AND 73 means the same as 66 + 73, he took out his abacus...

66 + 73 = 139

And so? Now we have a third Bible comprising 139 books!

No, we don't:

139 --> 1  39 --> "The 1st part (The Old Testament) comprises 39 books."

A Catholic Bible has 46 books in the Old Testament versus 39 in a Protestant Bible.

"Look, if your creation can't tell apart 66 from 6:6, then the chances that it splits 139 into 1 and 39 making the proper association is rather slim. You need to come up with the third instance of your endorsement."

"Why don't YOU come up with it? I got no nerves for this."

Good news! The third instance comes from within the human mind, and so it would be easily understood... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
6 hours ago, Advenix said:

But you can try to take a sample from the history and try to instill some drops of critical thinking into the mind of folks who needlessly believe outdated views of the Church, while you preserve the notion of the existence of God. But some folks like it the old-fashioned way, and so there is no point in trying to take it away from them. They are usually not equipped with analytic mind anyway, so they have hard time to understand variety of logical transformations and the need for generalization.

The folks in Harvard, or Princeton, treats identities as A=A, or B=B, without bothering to explain the domain, and so

A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A=A....

The reason why God was able to get from Alpha all the way to Omega (Revelation 22:13) was a true description of Alpha:

Alpha = "letter"

The problem is that human mind cannot easily distinguish between a definition and description, so it finds the following transitiveness a contradiction:

If A=letter and B=letter, then A=B?

or

5 = "number"
3 = "number"

If 5=number and 3=number, then 5=3?

Obviously, there is a difference between 5=number and 5="number." The latter is a description, not a definition. Descriptions generalize terms, so you can, for example, get the evolution of different species going:

A=B=C=D= . . . =X=Y=Z.

If you set Alpha="letter," you can take it all the way to Omega, because ("letter")=("letter").

Here is an example of pure magical thinking: There is substantial material evidence speaking for the evolution theory. Therefore God doesn't exist.

It can't get more fallacious than that.

Listen, you probably don't appreciate this, since you're such a new poster, but you're pretty much setting yourself up for a thunderous denunciation like you just haven't seen here before. I don't do that sort of thing very much any more, because it takes a while to write such posts and because they just aren't very friendly. And before I commit to really doing that, you should know some things.

First, I'm an actual scholar. A historian. Of the christian church. Particularly of the time period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the year 1100 or so. I'm currently writing a book about how liturgical drama acts as a bellwether for the relationship between Early Medieval border areas like northern Spain, Ireland, and the old Slavic marks in the west of Charlemagne's realm. I don't need for you to tell me how to take sample from history and "instill drops of critical thinking" on other people, particularly when you so stalwartly refuse to use critical thinking yourself. Critical thinking is not mindlessly playing with numbers. It's not ignoring other people's criticisms. It's not trying to bury counterarguments with more and more useless and atopical logorrhea.

I do not think in an old-fashioned way. My thinking, when it needs to be, is perfectly analytical.

I don't believe in god; I cannot comment on whatever conversations you two have had with each other. What I can comment on is how your highly individual take on christian numerology and how it fits in with millennia of christian thinking.

Or, more to the point, how it doesn't. The church has never accepted numerology as a part of its faith. The basic theological argument against it is pretty simple: god doesn't need to have secrets. He either reveals himself directly (through his own presence or through the actual, physical presence of Jesus) or has provided texts with explicit messages. Furthermore, god loves all his children equally. His message of salvation through Jesus is the same for all people. No hidden bonuses or secret detriments. No one can understand the mind of the divine, and the people claiming to do so were sinners -- liars -- because mere mortals cannot fathoms the ways of the deity. Why so feel obligated to parrot the same sentiment above when hypocritically telling us the secrets of god's mind through numerary m********ion is an impious little mystery.

Most numerology stems directly or indirectly from Jewish Kaballah; historically, the church was always very nervous about anything Jewish, particularly esoterica, so from the Middle Ages on, it took a strong stance against numerology, and it's telling the neither the catholic church nor any significant Reformation scholar took up the "study."

So, you can claim to know the mind and will of god, and say with a straight face you know secrets god put into the Giza pyramids, or the knucklebones of your left toe or whatever. But when you do that, you throw yourself out of the christian tradition. You can't rely on citing god as a source or your "higher" understanding of Biblical texts (which you have more than proven you do not actually possess). If you /are/ a christian, you should be deeply afraid of the consequences of your pride you demonstrate in "knowing" the mind of the lord and in flaunting the feedback you get from people far more knowledgeable about history, culture, archaeology, and mathematics. If you are a christian, I think you need to start demonstrating some piety, obedience, respect, because there's nothing in the Bible or in later christian culture supporting the way you've interacted with others here.

I would usually never write such things, but you keep flaunting your christian identity and understanding of god. And those things come freighted. If you claim such strong religious belief, you need to act like it and understand it, and it's up to the people around you to hold you to the requirements of christianity.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 hours ago, Advenix said:

The different number of books of the Bible that the Protestants and the Catholics use is another evidence of the failure of monotheism. That means MONOtheism - there should be only one kind of the Bible for the Christians.

God himself made clear on two occasions that the 73-book Bible, which is used by the Roman Catholic Church, is unacceptable. I have already mentioned one instance:

66 = "sixty-six"

6:6 = "not sixty-six"

If not sixty-six (books), then... The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled... (seeing the pope standing on the 73-book-long Bible trying to reach all the way up on the upper shelf.)
Genesis 6:6

The problem is that the mind of God's creation is not that flexible and so God came up with another instance. The second instance takes into account the fact that there is an agreement between the Protestants and the Catholics regarding the composition of The New Testament - in both cases, it is a collection of 27 books. So the difference lies in the number of books in the first part - The Old Testament: 39 books(Protestants) vs 46 books(Catholics).

And so, we have two kind of Bibles comprising 66 books and 73 books each. Which is the one that God prefers to sustain the MONO philosophy behind Christianity?

Well, we don't know, for God's mind is said to work mysterious ways. Moreover, God's mind is omnicient and infinitely exceeds the capacity of the human mind. In other words, if God explained to us the criterion of his choice, even Albert Einstein wouldn't comprehend the logic that God used to set his preference. That's the reason why God tried to make the argument as simple as possible. He considered 66 books and 73 books. Since 66 AND 73 means the same as 66 + 73, he took out his abacus...

66 + 73 = 139

And so? Now we have a third Bible comprising 139 books!

No, we don't:

139 --> 1  39 --> "The 1st part (The Old Testament) comprises 39 books."

A Catholic Bible has 46 books in the Old Testament versus 39 in a Protestant Bible.

"Look, if your creation can't tell apart 66 from 6:6, then the chances that it splits 139 into 1 and 39 making the proper association is rather slim. You need to come up with the third instance of your endorsement."

"Why don't YOU come up with it? I got no nerves for this."

Good news! The third instance comes from within the human mind, and so it would be easily understood... B)

The difference between Bibles is down to everyone else being damn dirty schismatics who want to be different to the One True Church :P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advenix
15 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Listen, you probably don't appreciate this, since you're such a new poster, but you're pretty much setting yourself up for a thunderous denunciation like you just haven't seen here before. I don't do that sort of thing very much any more, because it takes a while to write such posts and because they just aren't very friendly. And before I commit to really doing that, you should know some things.

---------- Snip ----------

So, you can claim to know the mind and will of god, and say with a straight face you know secrets god put into the Giza pyramids, or the knucklebones of your left toe or whatever.

---------- Snip ----------

I would usually never write such things, but you keep flaunting your christian identity and understanding of god. And those things come freighted. If you claim such strong religious belief, you need to act like it and understand it, and it's up to the people around you to hold you to the requirements of christianity.

--Jaylemurph

You could have spared yourself a great deal of embarrassment had you taken into account a few points.

1) The title of this forum reads Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History. So you can expect posts containing alternative views, as it has been the case with the OP looking into some other meaning of 666. Too bad that you can't fathom that.

2) I am not a subscriber to the Catholic theology nor am I affiliated with any religious belief, as it has been abundantly clear from my scribble. Everyone else understood, but you.

3) Your claim that I know secrets that "god put into the Giza pyramids" is an explicit lie, because the word "god" never appears in my contributions on the given subject. These are posts number 325, 328, 386, 396, 404, and 405. So anyone can see that you have reverted to a lie in order to support your  scattered thoughts that you've filled your baseless, acidic complaint with.

4) Please try to educate yourself to the point of being able to tell apart numerology from number theory and encoding before taking up the subject, especially in a critical manner.

You play your role of a local watchdog so poorly that it would make the statue of Virgin of Montserrat to shed tears. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Well, the sixth verse of the sixth chapter of the sixth book of the King James (revised for modern English) Version of the Bible is: 6. And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the Lord.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
20 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

 If you /are/ a christian, you should be deeply afraid of the consequences of your pride you demonstrate in "knowing" the mind of the lord

I must have said this a hundred times, in different ways.

The same thing can be applied to other insane ideas about deities. For example, the Anunnaki.

If you believe in those guys, I wanna know why you're not burning oxen in the backyard for them.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
4 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, the sixth verse of the sixth chapter of the sixth book of the King James (revised for modern English) Version of the Bible is: 6. And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the Lord.

Well, there you go.

That proves it.

Case closed.

As an aside, your inclusion of the "6." in your quote brought to mind Russell's Librarian Paradox. https://www.quora.com/What-is-Russells-paradox-with-common-words-without-the-set-theory-terminology

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
40 minutes ago, Harte said:

I must have said this a hundred times, in different ways.

The same thing can be applied to other insane ideas about deities. For example, the Anunnaki.

If you believe in those guys, I wanna know why you're not burning oxen in the backyard for them.

Harte

There are zoning ordinances, you know. And microwaving oxen just isn't the same.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.