scientific word for Biblical Filament in Genesis 1: Universe in the Nutshell

[blü 2]

Since this is what scripture declares about the world, why do the majority of Christians condemn it?

It's a common vice of fundamentalism, the notion that the books of the bible "as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (as the former Institute for Creation Research's Graduate School site used to say).

Some of them face up to it and are flat-earthers. The large majority think that's a silliness too far, and therefore insist the bible says no such thing, though since the bible's cosmology reflects the views prevailing in the times and places where it was written, none of them has yet answered my question, Why would you expect the bible to know modern cosmology? And how do you know the cosmology of 2019 which you wish to attribute to the bible is infallibly correct?

 

[blü 2]

Thank you for this .

It wouldn't be appropriate to try to prove it here but I believe there was once another kind of language that used the same vocabulary as our modern confused languages.

I believe that the concept of "firmament" originated in the ancient words for "rainbow". They referred to it some times as "steps of light" and when the language changed the meaning did as well.

The concept of rainbows may be key to understanding the sole source in Ancient Language; the Pyramid Texts. They are called "bows", "steps of light" and were caused by the "light scatterer of the sky" which was mist created by "I3.t-wt.t" and the "violent inundation that tosses".

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

To be clear, are you saying that the cosmology of the bible is actually different to the cosmology revealed in modern translations?

And that the authors of the bible had a modern concept of heliocentry, orbits, a rotating earth, the moon as a rotating satellite, stars as enormously distant suns, galaxies as enormous clusters of stars?

That's not what the history of science reveals. Rather it shows that the biblical version reflected the understanding of the times and places it was written.

 

[cladking]

To be clear, are you saying that the cosmology of the bible is actually different to the cosmology revealed in modern translations?

And that the authors of the bible had a modern concept of heliocentry, orbits, a rotating earth, the moon as a rotating satellite, stars as enormously distant suns, galaxies as enormous clusters of stars?

That's not what the history of science reveals. Rather it shows that the biblical version reflected the understanding of the times and places it was written.

No. I'm saying the writers of the Bible had access to books written by people who did understand astronomy and cosmology but it was written in a language that couldn't be translated or understood since the so called tower of babel. But these writers sometimes understood the gist of what was written and this was often written out in an amalgam of sense and nonsense. Ancient Language was metaphysical and digital like the human brain but it became too complex so it was overthrown at an "event" we know only as the Tower of Babel story. It's probable there were too few Ancient Language speakers to operate the state so the official language was changed to modern languages about 2000 BC.

Their science was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment.

 

[blü 2]

False dichotomies are false.

But God is frank about telling lies:

2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Jeremiah 4:10 ... “Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem ...”

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false.​

Unless those are lies, of course.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I'm saying the writers of the Bible had access to books written by people who did understand astronomy and cosmology but it was written in a language that couldn't be translated or understood since the so called tower of babel. But these writers sometimes understood the gist of what was written and this was often written out in an amalgam of sense and nonsense. Ancient Language was metaphysical and digital like the human brain but it became too complex so it was overthrown at an "event" we know only as the Tower of Babel story. It's probable there were too few Ancient Language speakers to operate the state so the official language was changed to modern languages about 2000 BC.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Their science was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment.

What's the difference between observation and experiment?

 

[blü 2]

No. I'm saying the writers of the Bible had access to books written by people who did understand astronomy and cosmology

And who in history were these? I'd certainly expect to have heard of them by now if what you say is correct.

but it was written in a language that couldn't be translated or understood since the so called tower of babel.

Nothing of that kind is in the bible accounts. Where does the story come from?

But these writers sometimes understood the gist of what was written and this was often written out in an amalgam of sense and nonsense.

Such a claim would only be possible if we had an authenticated sample of Ancient Language and a translation of it, no? But ─ and please correct me if I'm wrong ─ we have nothing of the kind.

Ancient Language was metaphysical and digital like the human brain.

Ahm, the human brain is biochemical and supernatural metaphysics is no part of it. On our present understanding, its functions are analog, interreacting signals of competing intensities for example, nothing digital at all. If you're interested, Science Daily has a section (under Health / Mind and Brain) that will pretty much keep you up to date with brain research. There are heavier sources out there too, like Scientific American Mind.

Their science was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment.

I think you'll find it was much more based on myth, and just-so stories, and folklore and folk magic. We don't find anything like a scientific approach ('natural philosophy') till we get to the Greeks around the 4th - 3rd centuries BCE.

 

[Sky Rivers]

It's a common vice of fundamentalism, the notion that the books of the bible "as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological" (as the former Institute for Creation Research's Graduate School site used to say).

Some of them face up to it and are flat-earthers. The large majority think that's a silliness too far, and therefore insist the bible says no such thing, though since the bible's cosmology reflects the views prevailing in the times and places where it was written, none of them has yet answered my question, Why would you expect the bible to know modern cosmology? And how do you know the cosmology of 2019 which you wish to attribute to the bible is infallibly correct?

Excellent question!

 

[cladking]

Do you have any evidence of this?

Everything known about the pyramids and their builders points in this direction. Of course the fact is Egyptologists have interpreted all this evidence in other ways and won't methodically apply modern technology and human knowledge to the study of the pyramids but the little evidence that has been gathered is not in agreement with Egyptology. Egyptological arguments are circular and illogical. Their methodology for translating the Pyramid Texts is illegitimate since they use a book that was written 1000 years later.

They finally used century old technology to study the pyramid which I've been clamoring for years to have done and as soon as my prediction proved correct in Oct 2015 they suppressed the results and said they will no longer release data that doesn't conform to the paradigm!!!!

What's the difference between observation and experiment?

Everything. "Observation" is really just "seeing" and trying to factor out beliefs and conflating factors. "Experiment" is reproducing nature under controlled conditions to see how reality operates. Of course from our perspective this is hard to see so better to say that "experiment" creates theory. This too is wrong because we mostly use experiment to create models we call "theory".

The problem here is people don't understand metaphysics and modern language is confused. The above paragraph while technically in conformance with two different types of sciences will look like gobbledty gook to most people. Indeed, most people will deconstruct the meaning such that it is wrong.

 

[cladking]

And who in history were these? I'd certainly expect to have heard of them by now if what you say is correct.

History doesn't start until the tower of babel because Ancient Language is not translatable. Its history went all the way back to "Adam" and "Eve" (really S3h and Sopdet).

Such a claim would only be possible if we had an authenticated sample of Ancient Language and a translation of it, no?

Well, we have an Egyptological interpretation but it is wholly in error. "Neter" did not mean "G(g)od" as they believe, it meant "natural phenomenon".

But ─ and please correct me if I'm wrong ─ we have nothing of the kind.

The Pyramid Texts is written in Ancient Language. It's just a silly little book of the rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies but Egyptologists take it as a book of incantation.

Ahm, the human brain is biochemical and supernatural metaphysics is no part of it. On our present understanding, its functions are analog, interreacting signals of competing intensities for example, nothing digital at all. If you're interested, Science Daily has a section (under Health / Mind and Brain) that will pretty much keep you up to date with brain research. There are heavier sources out there too, like Scientific American Mind.
I think you'll find it was much more based on myth, and just-so stories, and folklore and folk magic. We don't find anything like a scientific approach ('natural philosophy') till we get to the Greeks around the 4th - 3rd centuries BCE.

There are some analog cells in the human brain but most of it is completely digital since neurons are on or off.

Ancient science is unrecognizable to us because it was completely different AND requires a different way to think. Indeed, this thought process is the same one used by all other life and is the sole means all of creation has to survive. This means to think is so different that there were no taxonomic words and no words for "belief" or "thought". They didn't experience thinking which is really just the comparison of sensory input to models.

Modern humans grew a new speech center "at" the tower of babel. More accurately those who learn modern language think in this analog language and each at two years of age must grow a new speech center to translate now analog higher brain functions to the still digital speech center.

Ancient Language was completely logical because it reflected the wiring of the brain which reflects the same natural logic as mathematics.

 

[blü 2]

Ancient Language was completely logical because it reflected the wiring of the brain which reflects the same natural logic as mathematics.

How on earth can you say that about a language of which you apparently have not even one authenticated example ─ and have stipulated that you couldn't translate if you did?

 

[cladking]

How on earth can you say that about a language of which you apparently have not even one authenticated example ─ and have stipulated that you couldn't translate if you did?

The Pyramid Texts is the example. While it's impossible to translate because it's in a different format and is naturally logical, it can still be understood because the vocabulary underwent little change and we can model the formatting to understand it.

The biggest change in the vocabulary is that each word in Ancient Language had only a single fixed meaning and every referent had three words in three different "categories". It was the choice of category that determined whether that referent was the subject, object, or perspective in a sentence. Meaning was implied by the perspective.

It's easiest for most people to just take away that the Pyramid Texts was intended literally. The literal meaning is coherent and consistent ansd it agrees with the laws of nature. it's looks incredible to us because we don't understand the simple rules of grammar or the simple axioms of ancient science.

 

[blü 2]

The Pyramid Texts is the example. While it's impossible to translate because it's in a different format and is naturally logical, it can still be understood because the vocabulary underwent little change and we can model the formatting to understand it.

I don't know what that means.

How can it be impossible to translate if 'the vocabulary underwent little change'?

What does 'naturally logical' mean, as (I take it) a quality that Ancient Language had and modern languages do not?

Please set out a sample of Ancient Language, tell me how you know it's Ancient Language, and use it to illustrate being 'naturally logical'.

 

[cladking]

I don't know what that means.

How can it be impossible to translate if 'the vocabulary underwent little change'?

Well, the biggest change in language was that words became defined rather than "named". Everybody now must deconstruct sentences on a real time basis and no two individuals take the exact same meaning. You can't do this with a language that means only and exactly what it says. Words were representative in Ancient Language and now they are symbolic. "Mother" represented a mother in a sentence but now the word can symbolize anything and takes its meaning from context. We say what we mean but everyone takes a different meaning. They invited the listener into their brain to see their "thoughts". If we don't understand we rarely notice. If they didn't understand the utterance would sound like word soup.

Think of it this way; it's impossible to say anything that can't be deconstructed because that's how modern language works. There is no logic to it, we merely say what's on our minds. Ancient Language was logical and it couldn't be deconstructed or it lost its meaning. Obviously these languages are incompatible.

What does 'naturally logical' mean, as (I take it) a quality that Ancient Language had and modern languages do not?

Yes!

The brains (life force) of all individual living things are created by the same natural logic that governs reality (what we naively call the "laws of nature") . Mathematics is this natural logic quantified. All animals and ancient humans have a natural binary language that is inherently logical.

Please set out a sample of Ancient Language, tell me how you know it's Ancient Language, and use it to illustrate being 'naturally logical'.

It can be quite difficult to tell if any individual sentence is Ancient Language or not. But if it contains a "scientific", "colloquial", and "vulgar" term and it's meaning is implied rather than direct it is most probably an Ancient Language sentence. For the main part the PT is AL, the Bible is derived from AL, and the only mixed source is the Coffin Texts.

The intended meaning tends to be the literal one but to understand it you need a glossary and a rudimentary understanding of ancient and modern science. When they said "Osiris, in his name of seker tows the earth by means of balance" they simply meant it literally. "Osiris" was a water source, "seker" was that same water sitting in a counterweight that employed "balance" to lift (tow) the stones on the pyramid. "Tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms" was meant literally as well because "tefnut" was "downward" and her "arms" were the ropes that crossed over the pyramid and lifted stones on the other side to make the "earth high".

This stuff isn't complicated and it makes many predictions that have been and will be borne out if Egyptology ever employs science.

 

[blü 2]

Well, the biggest change in language was that words became defined rather than "named".

So in the Good Old Days, every noun was a sort of Linnaean taxon ─ you couldn't say 'rose', you said 'Rosa glauca', or 'Rosa palustris', right? You couldn't say 'rock', you said 'solid granite' or 'solid basalt' or whatever. You couldn't say mother, you had to say 'homo sapiens mother' and so on. Is that the idea?

I don't know why you'd praise such a clumsy arrangement, free of metaphor, nuance, humor, poetry.

Everybody now must deconstruct sentences on a real time basis and no two individuals take the exact same meaning.

How could that have been different in the Good Old Days? Each listener would bring his or her own understanding to the words (even if they were 'Rosa palustris) because we're always our own interpreter ─ interpretation is a task that can be shared, but not delegated.

Besides, if what I want to say is capable of precise meaning, I dare say I can say it precisely. Usually near enough is close enough ─ 'Is this the train?' ─ but I can say 'Is this today's 11:23 express to Smallville?' if need be. As long as I understand what facts I want to communicate, I can precisely communicate them, so I don't see a problem.

They invited the listener into their brain to see their "thoughts".

Who are 'they', exactly?

And how do you know they 'invited the listener into their brain to see their thoughts'?

If you were keeping pace with brain research, you'd know that would be a pointless exercise. Thoughts don't exist in words until we express them. If you could read my brain you still wouldn't know what the next word in this sentence would be till I'd typed it, not least because my conscious brain wouldn't know either.

it's impossible to say anything that can't be deconstructed because that's how modern language works.

You can deconstruct anything, even 'This plant is an example of Rosa palustris'. Whether you'd be better off doesn't matter ─ you could do it. Or I could, anyway.

Ancient Language was logical and it couldn't be deconstructed or it lost its meaning.

Since, as I said, any coherent statement can be deconstructed, you haven't said anything that suggests to me that your statement is true. Derrida and friends invented a game, the great majority of uses of which were trivial.

The brains (life force)

The brain is the generator of awareness and sense of self, but it's not a 'life force'. There's no single life force: human life is the result of a complex set of biological functions working cooperatively. Loss of effectiveness of even one essential function can result in death.

the same natural logic that governs reality (what we naively call the "laws of nature").

The consistencies of behavior of objects in reality and their relationships are something we observe and seek to understand; but our equations are models, not reality. The map is not the territory. and all conclusions of science are tentative.

It can be quite difficult to tell if any individual sentence is Ancient Language or not.

Didn't you just say that if you can't deconstruct it, it's Ancient Language? What's an example of an undeconstructible but coherent factual statement (now that I've said there aren't any)?

 

[questfortruth]

It says nothing at all about what they feel for you. They simply don't think the ideas you have presented have enough merit to warrant sending to the referees.

I don't know you. So I neither love nor hate you.

God is Love, and Love is God. “Love” is everybody's God. Love the Love. Love me not when I will earn your Love, but right from the start of conversation, just because Jesus Christ loves me. Take example from Him. He loves me. Do it as well! Love or Dislove (hatred), there is nothing in between. Because there are two: Jesus and satan. Nothing in between. Jesus - Love, satan - hatred. So, not the indifference comes first, but Love. One must earn not Love from you, but one could loose original Love of yours. Love is in Origin, because God is not damned sinner, God is not satan.

"All we need is Love"

 

[cladking]

So in the Good Old Days, every noun was a sort of Linnaean taxon ─ you couldn't say 'rose', you said 'Rosa glauca', or 'Rosa palustris', right? You couldn't say 'rock', you said 'solid granite' or 'solid basalt' or whatever. You couldn't say mother, you had to say 'homo sapiens mother' and so on. Is that the idea?

It wasn't this bad. A word like "stone" would be used for each type of stone with a prefix to identify it.

I don't know why you'd praise such a clumsy arrangement, free of metaphor, nuance, humor, poetry.

I'm not so much "praising" it as identifying it. The language had extreme weaknesses and few strengths but these strengths were very important. Communication was extremely good and it allowed each individual to think in terms of what was known. Everybody worked together for things that were important to the species.

Such a language is not only impossible today (for humans) but would be inappropriate as well.

There was some flexibility in expression so poetry and nuance existed. The language was like a song that rhymed with nature and stayed in time with her dance.

How could that have been different in the Good Old Days? Each listener would bring his or her own understanding to the words (even if they were 'Rosa palustris) because we're always our own interpreter ─ interpretation is a task that can be shared, but not delegated.

Because each word had a fixed meaning that wasn't defined in other words which had symbolic meaning like we do. There were no definitions at all. Rather every word was "named" with what was known about it. "Stone" was "that which is hard", "that which formed in the earth", etc, etc.

Besides, if what I want to say is capable of precise meaning, I dare say I can say it precisely. Usually near enough is close enough ─ 'Is this the train?' ─ but I can say 'Is this today's 11:23 express to Smallville?' if need be. As long as I understand what facts I want to communicate, I can precisely communicate them, so I don't see a problem.
Who are 'they', exactly?

Of course! We can use great accuracy and precision. But each listener still takes a different meaning and we don't see it. Additionally "precision" almost always means bigger words and this throws more and more people so the population that understands you at all will shrink.

And how do you know they 'invited the listener into their brain to see their thoughts'?

This is just the way I imagine it seemed. Perhaps it seems this way only to me since I don't understand the language in the same way a native speaker would. You've got to remember the deficiencies in my understanding go beyond merely having to model it and include things like not understanding all the grammar and there are still dozens of words that neither I nor Egyptology can translate. Worse, there are hundreds of missing words. Egyptological misinterpretation still is a stumbling block for me since this was all forced into the wrong understanding.

If you were keeping pace with brain research, you'd know that would be a pointless exercise. Thoughts don't exist in words until we express them. If you could read my brain you still wouldn't know what the next word in this sentence would be till I'd typed it, not least because my conscious brain wouldn't know either.

Yes. I've no doubt you are right.

Ancient sentences probably didn't follow this rule however since they said the "words arose like a lotus in the river". The entire thought arose in full bloom. I believe this is the difference between thinking in one dimension as we do and in three (4?) like they did. The entire operation of the brain is changed by the programming we call (modern) language. For all practical purposes we are not even the same species as the first 40,000 years of humans on the planet.

You can deconstruct anything, even 'This plant is an example of Rosa palustris'. Whether you'd be better off doesn't matter ─ you could do it. Or I could, anyway.
Since, as I said, any coherent statement can be deconstructed, you haven't said anything that suggests to me that your statement is true. Derrida and friends invented a game, the great majority of uses of which were trivial.

Yes, we not only can deconstruct it, we must. This is how modern languages work with symbolic words that are defined in other symbolic words.

Ancient Language was like a math equation and couldn't be deconstructed without destroying the meaning. Just as you can't deconstruct "two plus two equals four", you can't deconstruct "osiris tows the earth by means of balance".

The brain is the generator of awareness and sense of self, but it's not a 'life force'. There's no single life force: human life is the result of a complex set of biological functions working cooperatively. Loss of effectiveness of even one essential function can result in death.

I should not have used the term.

The consistencies of behavior of objects in reality and their relationships are something we observe and seek to understand; but our equations are models, not reality. The map is not the territory. and all conclusions of science are tentative.

Few people seem to understand this.

 

[The Anointed]

Absolutely, none whatsoever.

I actually agreed with your interpretation of the firmament. The firmament can mean dome or vault or even expanse.

My problem are with questfortruth and The Anionted, or more specifically with their interpretations of what the firmament is.

For instance...@The Anointed post:


He are making up with his interpretations of the Genesis.

Where is the mentions of any cloud in Genesis 1:1-2 or in 1:5-8?

No clouds were ever mentioned, be they what we see in our atmosphere, or that of clouds of galactic nebulae or stellar nebulae.

The Anointed is trying so hard to push more meaning in these verses than what the verses are actually saying.

Like you have in your reply to him, he is over-complicating the Genesis’ verses.

That’s where my problems.

The other problems are that, in The Anointed’s reply is the nebula.

It is clear that The Anointed have no ideas what the nebulae are.

He should at least learn the basics, like star formation, red giant/white dwarf stars and supernovae, because they are all related.

All The Anointed has done in his post, is make himself look uneducated, or worse, lying through his teeth.

The scriptures were written by Scribes whose minds were merged with the Omega, who mentally descended through time and gave to them a truth that they were able to understand in those days.

For the word of God can be likened
To a Star that's being ever brightened
By the mind of man reaching ever higher
But those who deviate, they're liars

In God's word man's mind can grow
But those outside, they're like the snow
That settles on the desert sand
And will melt away before I am.

Clouds can be and have been translated as waters.

I never cease to wonder midst the lightening and the thunder
How a million tons of water can just hang there in the sky

gnostic wrote...……

He should at least learn the basics, like star formation, red giant/white dwarf stars and supernovae, because they are all related.​

​

This is the condensed account of creation as recorded in Genesis’.....…”In the beginning God created the universe, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and God’s active force was moving on the face of the waters. Then God said let there be light.”

Here is the scientific theory of creation........In the beginning, there was the “BIG BANG” which is said to have spatially separated the supposed infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity, which in my opinion was the White Hole at the end of the Great Abyss into which the previous universe had descended, this event spewed out a liquid like soup of electromagnetic energy in the trillions of degrees, it was from the quantum of that plasma (Waters) liquid-like electromagnetic energy that the earth and all the heavenly bodies would be created, and although, all that the earth was created from, was already there in the beginning, the earth at that time had neither shape or mass, which meant it was formless and void, and no suns had yet come into existence to light up the darkness of the expanding space. But there was momentum within that ever-cooling cosmic cloud of wave particles, which wave particles are the quantum of that liquid like electromagnetic energy, and are not really particles at all as they have zero mass and no electric charge, yet they carry angular and linear momentum.

One would expect, that those wave particles which are the quantum of the liquid like electromagnetic energy, would have continued to expand further and further away from each other in the expansion of the universal building material.

But with the angular momentum of those waves, they collided with each other in nuclear fusion in the creation of the first basic sub-atomic particles. As the universal temperature dropped to some billions of degrees, the dark energy which was the expansion’s acceleration force, began to form into dark matter, hydrogen and helium, with trace quantities of lithium, beryllium, and boron.

As the universe expanded and cooled, more hydrogen molecules were formed, and from these, after some thirty million years of attraction, came the formation of the first gigantic stars, [Massive atomic reactors} from which the galaxies would later be created.

And God said, “Let there be light.” Which was not the light from the sun of this minor solar system within our Milky Way galaxy, which solar system would not be created for some nine billion years after those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the bottomless pit.

Bursting into life and light throughout the primitive universe over an unknown period of time, those first generation stars would have been thousands upon thousands of times as massive as our Sun and millions of times as bright, but each one burned for only a few million years before meeting a violent end, when they exploded out in a brilliant flash before collapsing in upon themselves creating the massive centrally condensed systems called ‘Black Holes,’ in which the greater percentage of their mass was trapped. The first creative day ended as all those gigantic stars collapsed.

Those first gigantic stars, in which the heavier elements would be formed from which the galaxies would later be created and which would have been collapsing in upon themselves, and evening descended as the lights of the universe went out, and the black holes devoured each other, and darkness covered the contracting space

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere metres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the star of our solar system, can form a White Dwarf, the gravitational collapse of bigger stars can create a neutron star, or a Black Hole, depending on its mass, but not necessarily a Worm Hole.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done. Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

I think that I know what I'm talking about sunshine, it is you who are rabbiting on with your rubbishing Rhetoric.
Never spit into the wind mate, you'll end up wearing it yourself. I am no liar as you in your ignorance to Who I Am have suggested.
​

 

[gnostic]

Everything known about the pyramids and their builders points in this direction. Of course the fact is Egyptologists have interpreted all this evidence in other ways and won't methodically apply modern technology and human knowledge to the study of the pyramids but the little evidence that has been gathered is not in agreement with Egyptology. Egyptological arguments are circular and illogical. Their methodology for translating the Pyramid Texts is illegitimate since they use a book that was written 1000 years later.

They finally used century old technology to study the pyramid which I've been clamoring for years to have done and as soon as my prediction proved correct in Oct 2015 they suppressed the results and said they will no longer release data that doesn't conform to the paradigm!!!!

Sorry, but when did you say the Tower of Babel happened?

Wasn’t it around 2000 BCE?

The Pyramid Texts were between Unas (c 2375 - c 2345 BCE, the 9th king in the 5th dynasty) and Pepin II (c 2278 - c 2184 BCE, the 4th or 5th king of the 6th dynasty).

So they predated your date of 2000 BCE.

Second, the date that they were able to estimate from various king lists (eg Abydos King List, Turin Canon and the Saqqara Tablet) more or less conform with datings of site of their pyramid complexes (eg pyramids, mastabas, mortuary temples, boat pits) and dating of objects (eg found the Unas’ cartouche on vases and other vessels that bears his names).

Third, the hieroglyphs of the Old Kingdom period haven’t changed all that much in the later periods, eg Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom and the Late Period. Some new words may be introduced, but largely it have been pretty static.

Lastly. If you brought up the Tower of Babel, which doesn’t exist except in Genesis, which isn’t a history book, and your conspiracy theory of the Ancient Language, then it is probably understandable why no one is taking you seriously.

Everything you provided, you have no evidences to give. If you provided no verifiable evidences to support your data, like there have being no evidences for the Tower of Babel, then it is also understandable why people rejected your data and finding as nothing more than a quack conspiracy theory.

The Tower of Babel doesn’t exist except in Genesis, and Genesis is not a history book, so you using the Tower of Babel as point history, will get you no where.

 

[cladking]

Any data you have, must be verifiable, and that you cannot show evidences of the Tower of Babel, only just show your expertise is no better than that quack conspiracy theory.

You wholly misunderstand.

I do not "believe" in the Tower of Babel nor do I know if there was anything in the bible related to the REAL change in the language. I am merely speculating that perhaps there was a REAL change in the language about 2000 BC that was confused into the story of the tower of babel. The only "evidence" for a collapsed "tower" to my knowledge is the Meidum Pyramid.

What I am suggesting is that the Pyramid Texts is written in a different kind of language that was metaphysical, binary, logical, and natural and that it can be understood by solving word meanings in context and then modelling the grammar. If this is true then the implication is the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars exactly as the physical evidence shows. If this is true it follows that much of what we call "science" is extrapolation of beliefs derived from experiment and much of what we call "religion" (or the Bible) is a confusion of ancient science based on reality.

It's above my pay grade to have any of the answers but I can say that "vault", "steps of light", "sky arcs", and "firmament" are concepts from the Pyramid Texts that all appear to refer to rainbows.

Egyptology simply never bothered to try to solve the PT through context. Instead they used a book from a 1000 years later to try to solve word meanings and then parse the sentences. They simply never noticed the language had so few words, broke Zipf's Law, had no words for "belief" or "thought" and had no taxonomic words. They never noticed the PT is about life and not death. They never noticed these things because they saw what they expected. They saw the same sun addled moribund gobbledty gook as the "book of the dead" that they used to interpret it.

 

[gnostic]

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travelers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

That’s why worm hole falls under the theoretical category in physics.

The worm hole is mathematically feasible, but not factually, meaning no evidences to support the worm hole model, which is why worm hole is a scientific method.

Maths alone, isn’t enough to verify it is true.

The model has to falsifiable (meaning testable) and tested (actual evidences that can be observed, tested and verified) BEFORE it can be scientifically accepted as true.

The only place the worm hole model have succeeded, are in the realms of fiction like sci-fi and in the nonfiction pseudoscience popular science.