Re: Chez Watt: Re: The Seed



On Feb 8, 2:34 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:28 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 7, 3:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 7, 6:48 am, Herman <Dusty55...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:44 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 4:58 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Herman wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:27 pm, alextangent <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the "Stop, You're Making Me Dizzy" category

We
also know that a quasar spins clockwise on the top and counter
clockwise on the bottom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this... Make a circle with your thumb and index finger with your
left hand and hold it about your chest level. Take your right index
finger and rotate it clockwise inside the circle. Keep it rotating in
the same direction as you lift your arms above your head and you will
see that your finger is rotating counterclockwise as you are looking
up at it.

That's amazing! Try this slightly more sophisicated version.

Put the index finger of your right hand in your left ear and the index
finger of your left hand in your right ear. Now rotate the first clockwise
and the second anticlockwise, note which way are they turning when they meet
in the middle. You may have to practice this in front of mirror to get it
right (or left as the case may be) if so make sure to use a non-reversing
mirror unless you can stand on your head. Make sure you only do this
demonstartion while help is at hand as you may find that you are not capable
of solo exdigitation.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This works as long as your left ear is on the left side and your right
ear is on the right side. It is not a perfect test because everyone's
ears are not the same. Also.. some people heads are solid meat. They
are known as "meat-heads". (Archie Bunker's son-in-law is a good
example)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is the ancient Hebrew text for Genesis 3:20 if anyone is
interested. There is one definition that was really interesting to me
and the word can mean separation. (From Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon are
my thoughts)
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the
mother of all living.
Gen 3:20 . 'adam:H120 qara':H7121 . 'ishshah:H802 shem:H8034
chavvah:H2332 kiy:H3588 . . . 'em:H517 . kol:H3605 chay:H2416
120. 'adam, aw-dawm'; from H119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an
individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, +
common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
7121. qara', kaw-raw'; a prim. root [rather ident. with H7122 through
the idea of accosting a person met]; to call out to (i.e. prop.
address by name, but used in a wide variety of applications):--bewray
[self], that are bidden, call (for, forth, self, upon), cry (unto),
(be) famous, guest, invite, mention, (give) name, preach, (make)
proclaim (-ation), pronounce, publish, read, renowned, say.
802. 'ishshah, ish-shaw'; fem. of H376 or H582; irregular plur.
nashiym, naw-sheem'; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582):--
[adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together,
wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.
8034. shem, shame; a prim. word [perh. rather from H7760 through the
idea of definite and conspicuous position; comp. H8064]; an
appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by impl. honor,
authority, character:-- + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown,
report.
2332. Chavvah, khav-vaw'; causat. from H2331; life-giver; Chavvah (or
Eve), the first woman:--Eve.
3588. kiy, kee; a prim. particle [the full form of the prepositional
prefix] indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or
consequent; (by impl.) very widely used as a rel. conj. or adv. [as
below]; often largely modified by other particles annexed:--and, +
(forasmuch, inasmuch, where-) as, assured [-ly], + but, certainly,
doubtless, + else, even, + except, for, how, (because, in, so, than)
that, + nevertheless, now, rightly, seeing, since, surely, then,
therefore, + (al-) though, + till, truly, + until, when, whether,
while, who, yea,
517. 'em, ame; a prim. word; a mother (as the bond of the family); in
a wide sense (both lit. and fig.) [like H1]:--dam, mother, X parting.
(PARTING IS THE INTERESTING WORD)
3605. kol, kole; or (Jer. 33 : 8)` kowl, kole; from H3634; prop. the
whole; hence all, any or every (in the sing. only, but often in a
plur. sense):--(in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner),
enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing,
ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).
2416. chay, khah'ee; from H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh
(plant, water, year), strong, also (as noun, espec. in the fem. sing.
and masc. plur.) life (or living thing), whether lit. or fig.:-- +
age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-
time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry,
multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

Have you ever talked to a scholar of ancient Hebrew about your work?

Have you ever read a book by a Hebrew scholar, and of so, are you
prepared to argue why he (or she) is wrong without resorting to
referencing NASA photographs?

You have a goal in mind, and use a dictionary to get there: one from
column A, one form column B. You use your goal (describing scientific
discoveries) to choose among various possible translations of a
particular word. You are not using a deeper understanding of language
and culture to arrive at the best English translation. You create this
alternative translation to establish the truth of your premiss! Even
then, you need ...unique meanings of various English words to make it
work.

In American English would you use these interchangeably?
so far = until now
priceless = worthless
witch = enchanting

A non-native English speaker, using a dictionary and looking for a
certain goal, might come up with bizarre interpretations of a
narrative that sounds very different from a more correct translation.

Why have no biblical scholars told us about black holes 100 years ago?
Why were we not told that our sun was a star? This would have been
easy enough for any goatherd or priest to understand, and would have
given a bit of an idea on how big the universe was. It would also have
helped establish the street cred for the bible in science. Or "Wash
your hands before eating". *That would have been helpful as well as
impressive.

Kermit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text

The ancient Hebrew is a hard language to understand in English as well
as Hebrew. I saw 7 experts on the Hebrew language on TV one morning
and all they did was argue among one another for the entire show. That
means that only one could have possibly been right or NONE. My guess
is NONE.
There's also Tradition that might stand in the way of a better
translation. If you have been taught one thing since childhood and
someone comes up with something else, they might be in for trouble
even if they are right. Look what happened to Jesus Christ.
I did learn to read so I can read the definitions of the Hebrew
words and see what they mean. If you want to go into lexicons for the
writer's generation, forget it. The Bible was written for every
generation so the lexicons for our generation is what I used.
We also have the Holy Ghost (understanding of the bible) that God
gives to who he chooses to give it to. He also makes it impossible for
anyone that don't belong to him to understand the Bible.

What happens when two people claim the Holy Ghost talks to them, but
he told them different things? How would anyone else know who was
right? How do *you know?

Scientists are well aware of our human talent for self-deception.
Using only verifiable data and falsifiable theories helps them stay
honest to themselves as well as any others.

I am well satisfied with what I have together so far. I realize that
it could be improved and that will come in time with the Hebrew text
as well as my illustrations. (also with the new discoveries of science
like the grail satellites that are in orbit around the moon as we
speak) There might be a possibility that the info found might fit with
Genesis or another possibility that science might not understand what
they find.

Or, you don't understand your scriptures.
Or, the scriptures provide no scientific information whatsoever.

So far, I have written my story as best as I knew how, and so far
it has been right BEFORE the info was discovered by science. I am well
satisfied with that and to me it proves the first chapter of Genesis
to be worded right (In the Hebrew text)
So all of your suggestions were unnecessary but thanks for the
attempt. I know you were tying to help me with my assumption as well
as my translation. I do appreciate your advice and brilliant
understanding.

For instance: what kind of scientific finding would you consider to be
incompatible with your claim that the bible says something significant
about the cosmic structure (whatever that is)?

What would have disproved your ideas, or conversely, what discovery
would you claim was completely off the truth (i.e., Genesis as Herman
reads it)?

My understanding isn't brilliant. I don't claim to be more
knowledgeable than professional biblical scholars who communicate with
each other, nor to understand science better than the professionals in
the field.

I'll admit you are closer to describing scientific ideas than most
creationists we see here. But you are still retroactively interpreting
the bible after the fact. You mention that "it has been right BEFORE
the info was discovered by science." Right about what - do you have an
example ?

Kermit

Yes I do have a few examples. The first is the protoplanetary
nebula. When I started my book back in 1987 my book was 5 pages long.
My next rewrite was 15 pages, my next was 25, then 50. The only
science that I knew in 1987 was what I had seen on TV and what I had
learned in school (and that was in the 50’s). A science book from the
50’s is like a comic book now days. They thought the earth was
captured into it’s orbit so that means they thought it was wondering
through space on it’s own. That might sound funny now days but
everything that they published had evidence to back it up. The only
thing was, their evidence turned out to be evidence of something else.
There’s still a lot of nonsense in the big bang theory like the
singularity that started it all, and the capture of the moon as it
collided with earth. The grail satellites will send back some info
soon and we will know a lot more stuff. As of today, Feb.8, 2012, my
assumption of how the moon formed was app. 550 million years ago when
our sun being a red dwarf collapsed under it’s own weight and became a
star. It’s solid core exploded and asteroids shot out through the
inter planets and behind them came a ring (Like a gigantic smoke ring)
of ash and dust and was caught up in the earth’s orbit. As the earth
rotated though the dust and ash the earth formed rings like Jupiter
and our moon formed from those rings. We will wait and see what
science finds out from the grail satellites and see if any of their
info fits. So far, they have found asteroid impacts on the earth
starting from about 550 million years ago and that’s evidence of the
sun reaching fusion because prior to that, there were no asteroids.
Knowledge from the Bible is just outlines of events that happened
when the universe formed. What I did was find reasons for these events
to happen, then say, if this happened because of this and that, what
would that cause. Common logic along with the little physics that I
know and things that I read in scientific articles (over years of
study) have formed a model of the universe different from the big
bang that fits with the outlines from the Bible.
From the idea of protoplanetary nebula that is the same as sea
water, I got the idea of the disks and the slip points in a rotating
mass of frozen water and elements. The slip points would be where the
planets formed and the difference between the speed of each ring would
be how the planets got their spin. (Like rolling a ball of modeling
clay between your hands) My science teacher in the 7th or 8th grade
told me about the sun reaching fusion, collapsing under it’s own
gravity or weight. Later someone named it a brown dwarf.
One thing lead to another and my model formed over 25 years of study
and logical thinking from scriptures from the Bible.
I also have other assumptions that I have never heard so far that I
got from Genesis and how the earth evolved from the sub core first,
then the core, then the outer core. That was Pangaea and Pangaea was
about 1/3 the earth is today. When the sun reached fusion asteroids
smacked the earth time and time again. Science has found evidence of
about 23 impacts and about 7 major impacts over a period of about 550
million years. That could be the way the surface of the earth was
cracked and our continents formed. Also, the age of the ocean floor is
about 600 million years old, so that fits with the asteroids and
Pangaea. That was when the earth started collecting the last ring that
formed the mantle. It grew 2/3rds it size in 550-600 million years.
The earth grew from the inside from the rings that formed the mantle
as the sea water filled the 50 mile wide cracks and the solid elements
from the sea water were left at the bottom of the cracks (20 miles
deep) and melted into the hot mantle. As the earth grew, the cracks
widened forming the ocean floors. I had this all illustrated back in
1995- 2000 on the internet with an AOL web page. It got thousands of
hits and was the web page of the month at one time. Then AOL decided
to do away with all the web pages and away it went. (I almost went
with it and was about as mad as everyone else about the Web pages.
That was why I chose AOL to start with was because they offered a free
Web page). (Still mad) Some of the illustrations that you see on my
pages now are some of those old airbrush illustrations that I did at
John’s Pass at Maderia Beach Florida when I worked as T-shirt artist.
John’s pass was a tour for vacationers from Europe, and I give away
hundreds of copies of my book from people from all over the world.
This was all new stuff then and that was just after the Hubble so
people were interested in the Hubble images.

.