The Religion Discussion

[d spike]

I heard you used a term some posts aback "justification machinery "
do you mind sharing your thoughts on that?

Hopefully, one day, people will be mature enough to do two things properly at the same time:
1.recognize that many parts of the Old Testament were written by men to show how loved by God they thought they were (and thus their actions were justified) and these writings were accepted because of their "historical value" (and value as "justification machinery" ) ... and these books will be accepted as such;
2.appreciate and apply the positive values that are existent in these and other scriptures - for THIS is the reason why they are (or should be) held in such high esteem.

Before I go further on this topic, recognize one thing: we are human. Every thing we do, no matter how superb or grandiose, reflects this... even when it comes to writing history, poetry, prose - and thus, scripture.
And so, scripture has two aspects, namely, the divine (morals, revealed truths, extolled virtues, yada, yada, yada... you know about this, so details aren't necessary)... and the human.
You know us humans well... swaggering, boastful, prideful little buggers... always anxious for a chance to prove ourselves better or more worthy than our neighbours... and, sadly, religion gives us many marvelous opportunities to do so... and one such way is to point out in writing how beloved our particular group is by a deity, thus preserving this viewpoint for posterity - in the form you know as scripture.
Do you know of any tribe or people who think that ANOTHER tribe or people is their "God's chosen people"? (I'm not talking about individual, low self-esteemed Uncle Ruckuses who worship the ground trod on by fairer-skinned folk )
The Masai believe they came from the sky... The Japanese think they descended from the gods... We all have this natural, but vain, belief that "We're no.1"... "Daddy's favourite"...

Thanks to this chest-thumping aspect of humanity, scripture does have in it references to what the goodly folks did... and if it was successful, then "clearly, God was rewarding his children"... if it wasn't, then "certainly, God was guiding them back to the right path".
You never hear the Philistines being referred to as "God's other children", do you?

Since all this material was considered scripture, as weeding out unseemly parts would not have seemed appropriate - until Luther came along - so the bathwater remained behind with the baby.
All this remarkable stuff now allows folk to quote "the bible" to justify whatever they want. Slavery and racism has been justified using scripture. Both homophobia and homosexuality has been justified using scripture. Invasions, destruction, genocide, murder, war, hate, and quite a few other bad habits humans love to suffer from, have been justified using scripture.
This doesn't mean scripture is not good... it just means we need to understand it better, and a mature outlook is required for this purpose.

[DFC]

spike i see yuh busy as usual facking up people in this thread.

lol.

[d spike]

Oh gorm... Idleness is ah helluva t'ing, eh?

[sMASH]

i hope the mistakes ar because of the language barrier

[d spike]

i hope the mistakes ar because of the language barrier

At first, I wondered about that...
But then, compare the following text with some posts made by supposedly English-speaking locals... and ask yourself which one seems more likely written by a person who spoke English from birth...

... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed. But the asterisks indicate what has been added to it. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks...

Compare:

If people of other belief who practice the slaying of animals for sins really understand real purpose of it, Jesus would not be a question

THERE ARE NO COMMON GROUND

That is according to your paradime view and you are entitle to it

fuh real tell me

But seriously, Smash, if this guy has been honest with us, then his propensity for learning a language is to be applauded. Just compare the post I quoted with his narrative in his earlier posts, and see the fantastic strides he has made in perfecting his usage... and in what space of time? Just think, if only our kids could demonstrate a quarter of this ability/learning rate...
...if only...

[dark_lord_tnt]

ROFL I apparently still cant explain my self..

Let me try again ..

Obviously, you seem to have a translation of the document.
Your displaying this excerpt shows clearly that such a matter is capable on your part.
"In It he makes reference to the rules regarding canonization and the same accorded to him. The letter Is currently Locked in Vault 874 Of the New Age Catical Collection If Sacred Text Letters Dated.
Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce the rest of it, or more importantly, the part that you constantly allude to... unless you can't translate it... or you only know of this excerpt... or it doesn't refer to such a matter after all... either way, the conclusion is the same.

thats what you said no ??

ok my response to that is with the two images .. (try firefox).. (which you did not see any of the images) .. Both are Latin documents

here are links
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/67a4318b0e.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c6fce3e8ab.jpg

so those are two of the latin documents from jerome..

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce the rest of it, or more importantly, the part that you constantly allude to

Now the English translation as you have asked for of the above is in the highlighted quote..

"nimium ut scribo en latin" too much to write in latin ,, "inviso pictureos supremus" look at the pictures above. Use the links I posted if you cant see them.

and the translated part is

... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed. But the asterisks indicate what has been added to it. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

"And I will move all nations, and the desired One shall come to all nations." [Hag, ii. 7.] In this passage the Septuagint translators giving another sense more suitable to the body than the Head, that is, to the Church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority..

That was a letter from Jerome.. I did not write the above its a translation of part of Jereme's many letter.. So the above was written by Jerome not by me, It is not referring to any of my post of anything I said but it is part of a correspondence between Jerome, and DAüîÇ..

I hope that clears it up now..

[d spike]

Thank you for not giving up.

I hope that clears it up now..

Go easy on the small, blurred images.
(Forgive me, but a 3"X4" photograph of a full page handwritten document appears as a blurry mess.)

and the translated part is

... you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the guide lines have been observed. But the asterisks indicate what has been added to it. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

That was a letter from Jerome.. I did not write the above its a translation of part of Jereme's many letter.. So the above was written by Jerome not by me, It is not referring to any of my post of anything I said but it is part of a correspondence between Jerome, and DAüîÇ..

Thanks, lad. Due to the way you presented it, I had no way of realising that this was the excerpt you referred to... it seemed to be of your own writing.


However, there is still the problem of your claiming to, but not answering, my original question.

Now the English translation as you have asked for of the above is in the highlighted quote..

The English translation that I asked for, as in:

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to produce the rest of it, or more importantly, the part that you constantly allude to...

which (I think) you referred to, as in:

In It he makes reference to the rules regarding canonization

concerned this, and only this ( not Jerome wringing his hands about Origen's partiality ):

When the Church compiled the canon they had 3 basic qualities for the text chosen,
a.) Each book must represent God and Jesus as a Supreme Entity
b.) Women Cannot be shown to be equal to man
c.) The Church must retain its rights and power..

I would really like to know where this particular information comes from.

[d spike]

Allow me to further clarify my position regarding your claim...
This claim of yours clearly refers to guidelines put in place to choose texts:

When the Church compiled the canon they had 3 basic qualities for the text chosen,
a.) Each book must represent God and Jesus as a Supreme Entity
b.) Women Cannot be shown to be equal to man
c.) The Church must retain its rights and power..

The Church made it's formal decision about such texts (this means the real decision was made even earlier) in 393 AD at the Synod of Hippo, and restated that decision at Carthage on 28 August 397.
If, as you imply, Jerome "makes reference to the rules regarding canonization" in a letter that you seem to have dated in the year of his death, 450, and such reference is:

... in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense that women will not have a place in it.

...then something is wrong with your timeline. Jerome didn't finish his translations until late 404, or in 405. The Church Fathers made their decisions without his input. Also, many of them, including Augustine, preferred the Greek translations (unlike Jerome) and this clearly puts him and his theory in the minority!

Observe your own translation:

Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

By your own hand, you show that Jerome's opinion was a very small minority at the time you stated: 450 AD! The Church nobs and brass had already chosen what texts they considered suitable almost 60 years before!

[dark_lord_tnt]

i apologize again ,, no 450 ad is the date of the filing.. the letters are before that each at a different time.. This piece in particular is a correspondence after his first translation. And the correspondence was that to one person not many. As you can see I have taken time to leave out names but you know already what I'm referring too. It would not be right for me to only give that piece so i gave the whole paragraph. I am limited in what I can present please understand that. Its not that I dont have It or translation but its more complicated. I am sorry about the size of the pictures but it was taken from a pen camera I will attempt to get a better resolution for you. Yes the church did choose what text before jerome but you can see he ventured against this and with good reason. If you can get a copy of his work (the first translation)

"In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself"

"Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes"

compare the two, you would understand what Jerome meant.

All i can do now is attempt a proper resolution for the document photograph as i have already stated its in Latin.

[d spike]

...I am sorry about the size of the pictures but it was taken from a pen camera I will attempt to get a better resolution for you....
All i can do now is attempt a proper resolution for the document photograph as i have already stated its in Latin.

Speaking for myself, please don't waste your time - my Latin is as small as your pictures

I'm afraid I'm rather biased against Jerome, and find his manner rather like Paul... another overly zealous gentleman whose attitude I class with Jerome. (I never said I disagree with them - that is a different matter - I just don't like their attitude. Perhaps it was helpful in those times... perhaps I judge unfairly, for it is based on the groundwork that they shared in, that I can now leisurely sift through centuries of focused and compiled work without fear or harassment, and look backwards in time and condescendingly view their struggles in an unfavourable light ...hindsight is always 20/20)
Despite my opinion of Jerome's charming personality, I begrudgingly admire (envy, perhaps?) the fact that he had access to texts that no longer exist - one reason why I hate women who throw things out... always cleaning, clearing, burning... "You really want this heap of old paper?"... "Well, the dog was having her pups right there on the cold floor, and no-one was using it...", and the worst: "You don't need this, do you?" while tearing it up and stuffing it into a bag, not before...

Yes the church did choose what text before jerome but you can see he ventured against this and with good reason.

Jerome himself made some inglorious mistakes (I guess we all do ) so, I would hesitate to use his opinion as a benchmark... I know the Church did (goody for them) but looking back, some of his errors seem to be caused by pride... as though he was one of those who claim to know enough about the subject to make an "educated" guess

I could never understand what his problem with Origen was... and when it started. I know Origen had his "heretical" beliefs, but Jerome would have known that in his formative years.
If one didn't know better, one would think they were great pals... and then something happened, causing Jerome to cast that away (almost like a jilted lover ) and sneer at the sound of his former friend's name...
...but the old guys walked the earth about a century apart!!?!?
How could Jerome, earlier in his life, speak on such glowing terms of the man and his work: "In his other books he surpassed everybody. In the commentary on the Canticle of Canticles he surpassed himself..."
Yet later in life, he gets ticked off by Rufinus (who just pointed out Jerome's admiration... at a time when admiration of Origen was a no-no) and starts to blaze Origen's work.

So, if Rufinus had kept his arse quiet, Jerome would have remained a quiet admirer of Origen???? (Or is it that Christianity, much like today, had "fads" about decrying previously admired folks?)

This reads worse than a cheap, colourful novel about a group of old hens in a small town...
Jerome: Origen's a nice boy...
Some old twit: (scowling) Really? Some of the stuff he says isn't all that kosher...
Jerome: (muttering nervously) Maybe... but he's okay... you know...
Rufinus: (taunting) Jerome likes Origen! Jerome likes Origen! Jerome likes Origen! Jerome likes Origen! Jerome likes...
Jerome: (screaming) No! It's not like that! You nasty, lying beyotch! I hates him! He doesn't know what he's talking about!


(Sigh) Looks like more coals for me to shovel in the afterlife...
Forgive the light-heartedness, but that is what made studying all that stuff seem interesting all those years ago. (We didn't have "Young n' Restless" to watch...lol)






By the way...

Do you believe that Origen did castrate himself?
(How serious can you get?)

[dark_lord_tnt]

Jerome's major problem with Origen was that of the translations of the document. Jerome believed that everything should be original and translated as best as possible to retain the authentic meaning. Its impossible to translate word for word only meaning can be translated. He wasnt fond of things being added or taken out or edited to fulfil the greater "need".

No I do not believe he castrated himself and with good reason. I will no go into it cause it will require information I am not able to provide. But I dont believe he was ever castrated. The effects of this caused a feud among some Jerome included. The problem wasnt the castration, the castration was created to solve the problem i guess. But no I dont believe he ever was although its alleged he castrated himself or was castrated for that matter. While castration was at that time practiced among the falsetto soprano by their parents at a very young age. Origen was not involved in opera to the best of my knowledge.

Regarding the "texts that no longer exist" dont believe that, you would be amazed at whats available and whats not. Its just that not everything is "meant to be known".

Above I posted 4 Pictures ,, anyone has any idea what and where they are ? Even so what is it concerning ? As you can see I'm leaning towards a debate based on the topic just I aint sure who knows about it,, Do you have any comments ?? oh i forgot your browser isnt working properly..
here are the links..
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4687/11276928584museumwheret.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7296/36158042454e4a5db5c8.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5460/stjosephparishbenguet28.jpg
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3896/juvark.jpg

[Alpha_2nr]

You know us humans well... swaggering, boastful, prideful little buggers... always anxious for a chance to prove ourselves better or more worthy than our neighbours... and, sadly, religion gives us many marvelous opportunities to do so...

Ironic.

[megadoc1]

I heard you used a term some posts aback "justification machinery "
do you mind sharing your thoughts on that?

Hopefully, one day, people will be mature enough to do two things properly at the same time:
1.recognize that many parts of the Old Testament were written by men to show how loved by God they thought they were (and thus their actions were justified) and these writings were accepted because of their "historical value" (and value as "justification machinery" ) ... and these books will be accepted as such;
2.appreciate and apply the positive values that are existent in these and other scriptures - for THIS is the reason why they are (or should be) held in such high esteem.

Before I go further on this topic, recognize one thing: we are human. Every thing we do, no matter how superb or grandiose, reflects this... even when it comes to writing history, poetry, prose - and thus, scripture.
And so, scripture has two aspects, namely, the divine (morals, revealed truths, extolled virtues, yada, yada, yada... you know about this, so details aren't necessary)... and the human.
You know us humans well... swaggering, boastful, prideful little buggers... always anxious for a chance to prove ourselves better or more worthy than our neighbours... and, sadly, religion gives us many marvelous opportunities to do so... and one such way is to point out in writing how beloved our particular group is by a deity, thus preserving this viewpoint for posterity - in the form you know as scripture.
Do you know of any tribe or people who think that ANOTHER tribe or people is their "God's chosen people"? (I'm not talking about individual, low self-esteemed Uncle Ruckuses who worship the ground trod on by fairer-skinned folk )
The Masai believe they came from the sky... The Japanese think they descended from the gods... We all have this natural, but vain, belief that "We're no.1"... "Daddy's favourite"...

Thanks to this chest-thumping aspect of humanity, scripture does have in it references to what the goodly folks did... and if it was successful, then "clearly, God was rewarding his children"... if it wasn't, then "certainly, God was guiding them back to the right path".
You never hear the Philistines being referred to as "God's other children", do you?

Since all this material was considered scripture, as weeding out unseemly parts would not have seemed appropriate - until Luther came along - so the bathwater remained behind with the baby.
All this remarkable stuff now allows folk to quote "the bible" to justify whatever they want. Slavery and racism has been justified using scripture. Both homophobia and homosexuality has been justified using scripture. Invasions, destruction, genocide, murder, war, hate, and quite a few other bad habits humans love to suffer from, have been justified using scripture.
This doesn't mean scripture is not good... it just means we need to understand it better, and a mature outlook is required for this purpose.

cool !!! d spike
thank you for you response

[d spike]

Jerome's major problem with Origen was that of the translations of the document. Jerome believed that everything should be original and translated as best as possible to retain the authentic meaning. Its impossible to translate word for word only meaning can be translated.

That's very nice... but think about it... don't you think Origen (and every other scholar who attempts to translate the scriptures) thought the same thing? Do you really think that any one of them decided: "Hey, you know what? I'm gonna do a proper translation of the bible. But I'm gonna put my own meaning... it's gonna say exactly what I want it to say..."

Jerome only started making anti-Origen noises when Origen's beliefs were being questioned in public, and Rufinus (trying to "legitimize"/justify Origen's work by a little name-dropping) pointed out that Jerome admired Origen's work...
Jerome only had a problem with Origen's translations AFTER, not before, this nonsense.
As I quoted him earlier, Jerome lauded Origen's translations publicly, and in writing... translating thousands of Origen's texts.

No I do not believe he castrated himself and with good reason. I will no go into it cause it will require information I am not able to provide. But I dont believe he was ever castrated. The effects of this caused a feud among some Jerome included. The problem wasnt the castration, the castration was created to solve the problem i guess. But no I dont believe he ever was although its alleged he castrated himself or was castrated for that matter. While castration was at that time practiced among the falsetto soprano by their parents at a very young age. Origen was not involved in opera to the best of my knowledge.

While I agree that preparing a child with talent as a "castrato" was a common practice then (and remained so until fairly recently) I never even considered you thinking along those lines. Castrating a boy to create a castrato only worked if he was still a treble, in other words, the task needs doing before the onset of puberty.
The story about Origen's self-castration is set in his adult life. According to some historians, he did it (some say: "not had it done" ) to ensure a lack of (ahem) distraction in his life, so he could tutor women without suspicion, they say.


While other historians claim that the entire story was created by those who wished to discredit Origen...

According to Book VI of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History Origen, after reading the Gospels took Jesus’ words, “there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12) literally and castrated himself . Eusebius, it must be noted, did not invent this story, but reported the rumor that had by his time been accepted as true.
We do not find this self-castration mentioned in any of his writings. Looking to the source of this tradition (the one whom Eusebius notes first told others about this so-called event in the life of Origen), it seems it is more likely a piece of malicious gossip than truth. For its source is Patriarch Demetrius of Alexandria. Demetrius originally was one of Origen’s supporters. However, in 215, Origen was in Jerusalem and Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem requested Origen, a layman, to preach in his presence. Demetrius was upset, believing a layman should never preach when a bishop is present. After a brief reprimand, Demetrius’ anger cooled off. Then, in 230, Origen was asked to settle a dispute in Achaea. He used the opportunity to revisit Caesarea; the bishop there, remembering the conflict of 215, decided to have Origen ordained so that Origen could be given a chance to preach. When Demetrius heard about this, he was enraged: Origen was one of his subjects and his ordination was seen as a breach of ecclesiastical etiquette. Demetrius had Origen banished from Alexandria, and it was at this time that he, bitter at Origen, suggested the story of Origen’s self-castration.

Above I posted 4 Pictures ,, anyone has any idea what and where they are ? Even so what is it concerning ? As you can see I'm leaning towards a debate based on the topic just I aint sure who knows about it,, Do you have any comments ?

Only two: the last picture seems to be a replica of the "Ark of the Covenant"; and
if you wish to discuss something, why not just do so? The comment about "not being sure who knows about it" is an unfortunate one, and to some folk might seem condescending.

[dark_lord_tnt]

actually i was trying to be sarcastic about Origen being a castrato. What i was trying to say there was no reason for him to be castrated although there is literal written claims he was well the claims have no merit.

"Ark of the Covenant"

Yes the last one is a replica. The second to last is that of the Church Of St. Joesph. The first is that of the church or house of the ark in etihopia (claimed!!!!!, alleged) the second is that of the of the so called Levi's (well claimed any way).. There are many stories concerning the Ark and one of that is it in Ethiopia. While there is no literal evidence of there being a Queen Of Shiba even more so that she and Solomon had a son that took the Ark to Etihopia ( I think that story was just made up) There is literal evidence to SUGGEST that a cretin tribe of Israel (mostly Priest) made journey from Israel to Ethiopia. Stopping along many parts on their way leaving physical evidence as well. Even more so treasures of Isreal Including Brest Plates of war etc.

The Ethiopians still practice ancient rituals originating from ark practices. They have refused to let the world see this so called ark. Although I believe the Ark is nothing special since Egyptians have many such and Moses was learned among them so its easy for him to know about egyptian priest practices and their magic. The purpose is to express ones views of this. In so much the Ark has "officially been lost to history" , forgotten, hidden, moved. There are theories that Its hidden in the Temples Mount, In the vally of the Kings, or in Ethiopia. What do you think the Ark really is, and what do you think happened to it. I do have a picture of a PERFECT replica made by Ethiopians for the festival of the ark. They say its an almost perfect replica since it lacks Gods Spirit, but I didnt see anything special at all.. I'll upload the picture at a later time..

[dark_lord_tnt]

egyptian arks









All of these are Eqyptian arks or "THE SEAT OF GOD" which is the same principle that applies to the Ark of the covenant as made by Moses. Moses was thought by the egyptian so by all means he retains their culture, ability and priestly magic, so its easy to understand where the concept of the ARK came from. Why is the Ark of the Covenant so famous ?? Cause the Jewish, and Christian religions are based on it. But the Ark was a fairly common practice. Oh and most Egyptian arks lined with gold are also claimed to have magical abilities striking anyone that touches it or comes close with lightning or glowing. None have ever been opened or the contents examined. Actually only 2 have ever been recovered. The First Of the Seat of Anubis is kept in Karo and the second the thrown of galambi is in Vatican Library.

I did not forget you..

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/04images/Arks/Egyptian_ark.jpg
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/images/religion/ark_2.jpg
http://www.yahwehsword.org/s-solomon/images2_files/08_ark13.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQI0icQWBK2qm_xJII_0lMcu8wTDPMv4UtZV7JmwLG5txA2bpVa

[d spike]

All of these are Eqyptian arks or "THE SEAT OF GOD" which is the same principle that applies to the Ark of the covenant as made by Moses. Moses was thought by the egyptian so by all means he retains their culture, ability and priestly magic, so its easy to understand where the concept of the ARK came from. Why is the Ark of the Covenant so famous ?? Cause the Jewish, and Christian religions are based on it. But the Ark was a fairly common practice. Oh and most Egyptian arks lined with gold are also claimed to have magical abilities striking anyone that touches it or comes close with lightning or glowing. None have ever been opened or the contents examined. Actually only 2 have ever been recovered. The First Of the Seat of Anubis is kept in Karo and the second the thrown of galambi is in Vatican Library.

Well, that is something.
Thanks a lot, darklord, you have taught me something! That explains a lot about the question about the creative idea that the Ark originated from. (I know a few lads who would be pissed about this information! ) I guess it stands to reason... Moses must have had a basis for such a concept... fundamentalists were always thrilled with the concept of the Ark - just like Noah's cruise liner - for it was novel. Yet, there you go and pop that cherry...
Just for that, there's a bottle of old wine at home with your name on it ...

I would love to hear what Bluefete has to say on that...
But seriously, there is a school of thought that claims alien technology was involved in Egypt's civilization...

most Egyptian arks lined with gold are also claimed to have magical abilities striking anyone that touches it or comes close with lightning or glowing. None have ever been opened or the contents examined.

Perhaps this might have been some sort of energy source or generator or transmitter (says the guy who has absolutely no idea what he talking about )
It would be great if one of those guys who can think clearly without any dotish bias (like Razkal) or someone who has studied this field, could provide some illumination on this...

[dark_lord_tnt]

I actually though you something ???? ok I am not sure if i should feel proud or faint.. lol well then i guess I should release some more information. I'll visit for Christmas for that wine if you'll have me.

Concerning Alien Technology..
Actually there are many theories about this. I'll post pics with them so you can see what I mean. I'll start from the basics. I'll start with the technology of the Ark.. Two most likely theories.

Gold is a very good conductor. Cover any material with silk and it becomes statically charged. Rub it with silicon (sand) and it becomes charged. If Moses had the ark in the dessert *which he did* covered it with fur of silk *which he did* it servers to reason the ark is a Giant Capacitor. Maybe its this knowledge that was refereed to as magic. Personally I believe that if a culture did not understand science but some did (magicians) the Magicians could use science to say it magic. Now if the ark was charged with static electricity, from the wind blowing the sand against it,, or rubbing the coverings (silk or fur) or a combination of both..

1. If you touch it you could die of electrocution.
2.) If you were close it it would make your hair stand on ends or even tingling sensation.
3. With the power of suggestion each of the above together with this could actually make an ark seem supernatural especially to a culture that did not understand it.

Now there is evidence of ancient technology and even that of electricity. One such example is the Baghdad Battery (Parthian Battery).

"

"The artifacts consist of terracotta jars approximately 130 mm (5 in) tall (with a one and a half inch mouth) containing a copper cylinder made of a rolled-up copper sheet, which houses a single iron rod. At the top, the iron rod is isolated from the copper by bitumen plugs or stoppers, and both rod and cylinder fit snugly inside the opening of the jar, which bulges outward towards the middle. The copper cylinder is not watertight, so if the jar was filled with a liquid"

" wikipedia..


http://www.skepticworld.com/ancient-artifacts/images/baghdad_battery_1.jpg

Thats a picture of it.
Now it can be filled with citric acid or even juice to produce a small electrical charge. however if it was filled with sulfuric acid (which we know that at that time they had as they gathered it from volcanoes) The charge would be Greatly higher. And we even know They had lead and used lead in some cases so that charge would be even higher again. If it was connected in parallel circuit or series circuit or both that will increase power even more.. Now what would they use this for ?? Magic. There is evidence to suggest that some jewelery were electroplated. There is not much but some evidence that they used it to power a light source, but for this they would need a bulb.


http://ancientx.com/images/sued1_big.jpg

hmm is that a guy holding a lightbulb (the long transparent thing with a filament inside and what appears to be a wire of some sort coming out from the end)??? And are they in what appears to be a pyramid?? Is this what they used to see inside the pyramid while they were building it ?? I mean that would explain why no soot or ash or anything relating to the presence of fire was ever found in a pyramid. Scientist have inquired for years how did they see inside the dark pyramid. If they used torches you would have ash dropping, soot from smoke on the roof and then again fire will require oxygen to burn an this inst practical in an are where it would be lacking.. Ever been inside a Pyramid ?? If they didnt install fans for ventilation you would find it really hard to breathe.

So now that we have established magicians were able to produce electricity and we know Moses learn't from the Egyptians all there secrets, We know he knew how to make it as well.. I wounder what would happen if these devices was placed in the ark ,, with the angels on top as the positive and the ark itself as the negative,, It would be shocking wont it ?? If this was so combined with the static electricity, the ark would be capable of producing enough power to kill many men instantly from a few feet away. Not to mention that type of power can disorient anyone close enough making them feel ill. I guess thats why levi's (am i using the correct word ?) of the priest that carried it needed special clothing. And it would also explain how the priest that tried catch it as if it was falling was instantly struck dead as if hit by lightening. I guess it was his special clothing that stopped him from bursting into flames like Moses's nephews. Given enough power something can be spontaneously combustive, Depends on the clothing and how much the witness can exaggerate.

Keep in mind enough electrical charge and an object can become illuminated or glow like the ark did. (think lightening)

Well let me stop there for now so you call can digest that and respond.

[megadoc1]

interesting points here

I'll start with the technology of the Ark.. Two most likely theories.

Gold is a very good conductor. Cover any material with silk and it becomes statically charged. Rub it with silicon (sand) and it becomes charged. If Moses had the ark in the dessert *which he did* covered it with fur of silk *which he did* it servers to reason the ark is a Giant Capacitor. Maybe its this knowledge that was refereed to as magic. Personally I believe that if a culture did not understand science but some did (magicians) the Magicians could use science to say it magic. Now if the ark was charged with static electricity, from the wind blowing the sand against it,, or rubbing the coverings (silk or fur) or a combination of both..

1. If you touch it you could die of electrocution.
2.) If you were close it it would make your hair stand on ends or even tingling sensation.
3. With the power of suggestion each of the above together with this could actually make an ark seem supernatural especially to a culture that did not understand it.

just a few questions
am... since this is all science and can be explained as you did
there lies the possibility that it can be reproduced,(the ark) tested and proven right?
have you, or do you know anyone who have tested this theory ?
how much electricity was accumulated or discharged and over what distance?

So now that we have established magicians were able to produce electricity and we know Moses learn't from the Egyptians all there secrets, We know he knew how to make it as well.. I wounder what would happen if these devices was placed in the ark ,, with the angels on top as the positive and the ark itself as the negative,, It would be shocking wont it ??not really unless the person made contact with both the angels and the body of the ark itself to create a circuit for the "magic" of electricity to take place providing there was enough electrical charge produced by the cell to get the job done (shock )in the first place which I doubt very much.
what you are suggesting can only seem plausible if you stick to the static electrical concept and even that have some issues , I will point out shortly If this was so combined with the static electricity, the ark would be capable of producing enough power to kill many men instantly from a few feet away. Not to mention that type of power can disorient anyone close enough making them feel ill. well I guess you are beginning to imagine things from here on
1. I don't think you can combine the electricity produced in a cell with static electricity
2.I think it is easier for the electrical charge generated to run down the leg of a levite to ground
or vice versa (according to the charge produced + or -) than to jump several feet in thin air to strike many men occupying common ground as the levites carrying the ark (not that it cannot happen but its too random and unstable, anyone can die because electricity is not a respecter of persons even moses ) what would happen if they passed by a tree?

I guess thats why levi's (am i using the correct word ?) of the priest that carried it needed special clothing. And it would also explain how the priest that tried catch it as if it was falling was instantly struck dead as if hit by lightening. I guess it was his special clothing that stopped him from bursting into flames like Moses's nephews. Given enough power something can be spontaneously combustive, Depends on the clothing and how much the witness can exaggerate.

Keep in mind enough electrical charge and an object can become illuminated or glow like the ark did. (think lightening)no

[sMASH]

^^ u try eet nah, to prove it can't work. hoss man, a little capacitor, (or as the old people know it as, condenser) from a tv does give u a jolt, and that is just a small piece of paper wrapped around a small piece of sheet metal. imagine a big one like the size of those jars, or the arks. tazzers utilize capacitors and see how small they are and how strong they are.

[mamoo_pagal]

^^ u try eet nah, to prove it can't work. hoss man, a little capacitor, (or as the old people know it as, condenser) from a tv does give u a jolt, and that is just a small piece of paper wrapped around a small piece of sheet metal. imagine a big one like the size of those jars, or the arks. tazzers utilize capacitors and see how small they are and how strong they are.

yup don't forget in them crt displays the "flyback" and why it was called the flyback!!

damn ting could pelt u a good couple feet........remember the first types of capacitors invented was in a jar form the Leyden jar

[megadoc1]

^^ u try eet nah, to prove it can't work. hoss man, a little capacitor, (or as the old people know it as, condenser) from a tv does give u a jolt, and that is just a small piece of paper wrapped around a small piece of sheet metal. imagine a big one like the size of those jars, or the arks. tazzers utilize capacitors and see how small they are and how strong they are.

I am a tv tech
I have learnt that electricity, big charge or small charge must follow the same principle , an electrical charge in a capacitor can only be discharged between its to charged points and I have never in all my life seen an electrical charge arc of to a third point(isolated)
see how tazzers work, ent they produce lightning like electricity?
why does it needs to make contact with a man before it become effective?
simple because the electrical charge can only travel between the two contact points on the tazzer but if you can some how get that electrical charge to jump towards the man without making contact bet yuh but a dollar you are gonna be feeling most of that if you are the one holding it

yup don't forget in them crt displays the "flyback" and why it was called the flyback!!

damn ting could pelt u a good couple feet........remember the first types of capacitors invented was in a jar form the Leyden jar

breds no thats not why it is called a flyback transformer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_transformer

A flyback transformer (FBT), also called a line output transformer (LOPT), is a special transformer which is used to generate high voltage (HV) signals at a relatively high frequency. It was invented as a means to control the horizontal movement of the electron beam in a cathode ray tube (CRT). As with all step-up transformers, it receives low voltages and transforms them into high voltages; in this case, it does so at a relatively high frequency--much faster than the vertical movement of the electron beam (known as the vertical scan rate).

The flyback transformer is used in the operation of CRT-display devices such as television sets and CRT computer monitors, and in other HV devices such as the DIY plasma lamp. The voltage and frequency can each range over a wide scale depending on the device. For example, a large color TV CRT may require 20 to 50 kV with a horizontal scan rate of 15.734 kHz for NTSC devices. Unlike a power (or 'mains') transformer which uses an alternating current of 50 or 60 Hertz, a flyback transformer typically operates with switched currents at much higher frequencies in the range of 15 kHz to 50 kHz

[mamoo_pagal]

sadly again megadoc it is understood that the transformer is called the flyback, however if you read carefully I used "flyback" in inverted commas. It is sad for a tv technician you never heard the joke concerning why in trinidad the use the term flyback in relative terms to the capacitors.

For example, for any basic electronic course especially where crt's are involved "these capacators store alot of charge and if not discharged properly and one makes accidental contact it causes one to "flyback" !!

It demonstrates the potential stored by these componentes and how powerful the discharge can be.....hence, the term "flyback" is commonly used to illustrate the importance of discharging the caps. properly

[megadoc1]

sadly again megadoc it is understood that the transformer is called the flyback, however if you read carefully I used "flyback" in inverted commas. It is sad for a tv technician you never heard the joke concerning why in trinidad the use the term flyback in relative terms to the capacitors.
no its not sad it is just that a flyback transformer is a transformer(stores no charge) and a capacitor is a capacitor if you say the tube acts as a capacitor then we may be on to something
and please lets deal with the science of it and not what trinis think ok


For example, for any basic electronic course especially where crt's are involved "these capacators store alot of charge and if not discharged properly and one makes accidental contact it causes one to "flyback" !!
nice try! who are you trying to impress?

It demonstrates the potential stored by these componentes and how powerful the discharge can be.....hence, the term "flyback" is commonly used to illustrate the importance of discharging the caps. properly
I think you meant the crt, it stores as a capacitor when not in use
and you are quite correct when you say it needs to be discharged properly
and this is mostly where my questioning came from
so
please explain to me then, why would an electrical charge travel four feet
in thin air when it could be discharged four inches across it contact points ? (in the same thin air)

[dark_lord_tnt]

LOL I was expecting someone with a response such as yours mega doc. Ok Physics 101,, class in session.. (sorry for the off the topic post but its necessary!!)

just a few questions
am... since this is all science and can be explained as you did
there lies the possibility that it can be reproduced,(the ark) tested and proven right?
have you, or do you know anyone who have tested this theory ?
how much electricity was accumulated or discharged and over what distance?

Testing The electrical Theory Of the ark.

"Over 250 years ago, a Dutch scientist called Pieter Van Musschenbroek (1692-1761) sent a report to the Paris Academy of Sciences outlining his experiments with electricity, and created a sensation. The year was 1747.

His invention, destined to be immortalised as the Leyden Jar, named after Van Musschenbroek’s home town and university, was a very simple device that accumulated and stored a large amount of electricity which, when discharged, could deliver a very powerful punch. As the inventor himself wrote: “My whole body was shaken as though by a thunderbolt”.

It consists of a glass jar, coated outside and inside with tinfoil to within 2 or 3 cm of the top. It may therefore be regarded as a condenser (capacitor) consisting of two parallel plates (positive and negative) separated by a glass dielectric (insulator)."

The ark is uses a much better conductor, Gold, and a good insulator , Wood. Using the example of the 500gm-coffee jar-sized Leyden Jar, and which could store a charge of approximately 200 volts, the Ark would have held the equivalent of 125 such jars, giving it a voltage of 125 X 200 = 25,000 volts or greater. The key to its successful operation is air resistance. Due to the Ark’s size, and its being earthed, it acted as the catalyst or trigger. The secret is the air resistance inside the Ark and the gap between the wings of the cherubim, which could be set accordingly. It would take longer for the charge in the Ark to overcome the air resistance than it would for the charge to build up inside the Tabernacle, or Temple. By the time the Ark was ready to discharge, a massive charge would have built up inside the Tabernacle, or Temple. yes replications and test were carried out by J. Gelb Jr., B. S. Ladman, M. J. Licata, M. H. Shapiro, and L. R. Campion University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716-2150 and many others..

Regarding The Ark Glowing..
Seems to me that you dont know much about electricity. So I'll explain as best as I could. I judge this from this response

Keep in mind enough electrical charge and an object can become illuminated or glow like the ark did. (think lightening)no

Let me explain how it works..

The Glow or haze resulting from a current flowing through normally nonconductive media such as air. The ark discharge relies on thermionic emission of electrons from the electrodes supporting the arc. The two Angles. Given a High enough Voltage 25,000 (v) and the principle of Thermionic discharge which depends on charged electrons similar to that of lightening without the heat and plasma, the air would become Charged Giving the radiating Glow.

.

I am a tv tech
I have learnt that electricity, big charge or small charge must follow the same principle , an electrical charge in a capacitor can only be discharged between its to charged points and I have never in all my life seen an electrical charge arc of to a third point(isolated)

The Poly Plate Capacitor: *Tesla capacitor*

The poly plate cap consists of an alternating stack of metal plates and polyethylene dielectric sheets, with electrical connections made to the metal sheets, giving you the two capacitor terminals. The whole stack is placed in a suitable container and submerged in insulating oil (transformer oil), to improve insulation and eliminate/reduce corona losses.

Capacitor:
C = capacitance in uF (micro Farad)
Z = PSU impedance (from above equation)
(N.B. substitute 0.00005 with 0.00006 for 60Hz supply)

given Z = E / 1

this capacitor can hold extremely high currents at high frequency (approx 100kHz to 300kHz). It has already killed several people from distance as little as 37' The current using the Ideo Eletric Principle can uses the AIR (normally non conductive) To discharged.

Regarding Voltage Of a Single Bhagdad Battery.

Physicist-chemist Walter Winton, a Keeper of the Science Museum in London, examined the original clay pot battery firsthand while re-organizing the Iraqi Museum in 1962. He made this comment: "Capable voltage 12.7 amps 4"

in a series of 10 / Parallel , 127V 40 amps.

Regarding EC electricity and Static Electricity.

hmm I'm way surprised given that your a tv tech..

Ever heard of the fluorescent bulbs ??? Its the ones that light white.. Its normally connected to a 110 circuit using whats called a Ballast to light it ?? DO you now u can light the same bulb using a van Van de Graaff Generator ???

Let me explain


http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8155/fig2.gif

thats the normal current flow circuit.


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8708/fig9.gif

Thats the electromagnetic and electrostatic fields it generates. It can also be generated from a battery. Think Of a Transformer *it uses electron (electromagnetic) flow to increase or decrease voltage, Since your a TV tech,, turn on a tv that makes a lot of hissing from the screen, now touch someone, hmm shocking isnt it..

Gold is a good conductor, charge it with static then use the electrostatic fields of a a circuit to amplifier the current. Its just like the TV screen that charges you with static electricity...

End of Physics you have any more questions please do some research on the field before posting..

[megadoc1]

please explain to me how an electrical charge would jump over four feet when it can be done inches apart?

[dark_lord_tnt]

please explain to me how an electrical charge would jump over four feet when it can be done inches apart?

LOL thermionic discharge.. The capacitor charges the AIR around it,, which then jumps to another conductor (you) which then transfers to the earth and then back to the air. Completing a circuit.. "THERMIONIC DISCHARGE" thats why lightening jumps from cloud to cloud, cloud to ground Positively charged to negatively charged electrons..

The capacitor positively charges the AIR and the ground While you remain negatively charged...

you can purchase an IDEO electric Lighter THE ONE THAT PRODUCES ELECTRIC SPARK. Take it apart and hold the IDEO device between your thumb and index fingers, move the wire close to an object (not you or anything your touching) metal works best especially gold, now press it and watch the sparks jump from the wire to the object and your not in contact with it .. Why ?? Thermionic discharge..

Thermionic Discharge is a quantum physics theory which explains why solar storms affect the planet electrically without completing a circuit. For example A solar ripple can put power in dead lines as it did in the 1800's where you can send a telegraph without a battery as well as electrocuted many people and there was no connecting material to the telegraph lines. They were suspended only by poles without any connection.. Thermionic Discharge..

What the bleep do we know ??

[mamoo_pagal]

sadly again megadoc it is understood that the transformer is called the flyback, however if you read carefully I used "flyback" in inverted commas. It is sad for a tv technician you never heard the joke concerning why in trinidad the use the term flyback in relative terms to the capacitors.
no its not sad it is just that a flyback transformer is a transformer(stores no charge) and a capacitor is a capacitor if you say the tube acts as a capacitor then we may be on to something
and please lets deal with the science of it and not what trinis think ok

Dude that is not what Trinidadians interpret of the flyback, it is pun that is used. But anyways have no time to deal with that

For example, for any basic electronic course especially where crt's are involved "these capacators store alot of charge and if not discharged properly and one makes accidental contact it causes one to "flyback" !!
nice try! who are you trying to impress?

Lol trying to impress!!!! sad just sad

It demonstrates the potential stored by these componentes and how powerful the discharge can be.....hence, the term "flyback" is commonly used to illustrate the importance of discharging the caps. properly
I think you meant the crt, it stores as a capacitor when not in use
and you are quite correct when you say it needs to be discharged properly
and this is mostly where my questioning came from
so
please explain to me then, why would an electrical charge travel four feet
in thin air when it could be discharged four inches across it contact points ? (in the same thin air)

Wow.............so I guess you are trying to say that tv's don't contain high voltage capacitors???? and u were a tv tech!!!
BTW megadoc......before you make a feeble attempt to educate people, just a little food for thought, on trinituner there a ppl of all different backgrounds who knows some maybe technincians, engineers ect. in the field of physics/electrical electronics. So there maybe a few who might know what they are talking about. Not me eh.........I kinda dunce.
There was a reason why I decided to stay out of this thread.......need to stick to it
Hmph interesting and please lets deal with the science of it
I guess science can make sense after all

[megadoc1]

please explain to me how an electrical charge would jump over four feet when it can be done inches apart?

LOL thermionic discharge.. The capacitor charges the AIR around it,, which then jumps to another conductor (you) which then transfers to the earth and then back to the air. Completing a circuit.. "THERMIONIC DISCHARGE" thats why lightening jumps from cloud to cloud, cloud to ground Positively charged to negatively charged electrons..

The capacitor positively charges the AIR and the ground While you remain negatively charged...

you can purchase an IDEO electric Lighter THE ONE THAT PRODUCES ELECTRIC SPARK. Take it apart and hold the IDEO device between your thumb and index fingers, move the wire close to an object (not you or anything your touching) metal works best especially gold, now press it and watch the sparks jump from the wire to the object and your not in contact with it .. Why ?? Thermionic discharge..

Thermionic Discharge is a quantum physics theory which explains why solar storms affect the planet electrically without completing a circuit. For example A solar ripple can put power in dead lines as it did in the 1800's where you can send a telegraph without a battery as well as electrocuted many people and there was no connecting material to the telegraph lines. They were suspended only by poles without any connection.. Thermionic Discharge..

What the bleep do we know ??

good but you still haven't explained why would an electrical charge chose to travel a longer distance to a conductor when an identical conductor is closer by
and why would it do so without affecting the closer conductor when both are sharing a common ground

[megadoc1]

sadly again megadoc it is understood that the transformer is called the flyback, however if you read carefully I used "flyback" in inverted commas. It is sad for a tv technician you never heard the joke concerning why in trinidad the use the term flyback in relative terms to the capacitors.
no its not sad it is just that a flyback transformer is a transformer(stores no charge) and a capacitor is a capacitor if you say the tube acts as a capacitor then we may be on to something
and please lets deal with the science of it and not what trinis think ok

Dude that is not what Trinidadians interpret of the flyback, it is pun that is used. But anyways have no time to deal with that

For example, for any basic electronic course especially where crt's are involved "these capacators store alot of charge and if not discharged properly and one makes accidental contact it causes one to "flyback" !!
nice try! who are you trying to impress?

Lol trying to impress!!!! sad just sad

It demonstrates the potential stored by these componentes and how powerful the discharge can be.....hence, the term "flyback" is commonly used to illustrate the importance of discharging the caps. properly
I think you meant the crt, it stores as a capacitor when not in use
and you are quite correct when you say it needs to be discharged properly
and this is mostly where my questioning came from
so
please explain to me then, why would an electrical charge travel four feet
in thin air when it could be discharged four inches across it contact points ? (in the same thin air)

Wow.............so I guess you are trying to say that tv's don't contain high voltage capacitors???? no they do not! the highest i saw in a tv was 430 v and that was in the power supply unit when the set is unplugged it is slowly discharged
and the circuit that drives the flyback transformer's primary windings(horizontal output) operates between 90v -135 volts even if you stick a higher voltage capacitor in there it can only be charged to the operating voltage in the setand u were a tv tech!!!
BTW megadoc......before you make a feeble attempt to educate people, just a little food for thought, on trinituner there a ppl of all different backgrounds who knows some maybe technincians, engineers ect. in the field of physics/electrical electronics. So there maybe a few who might know what they are talking about. Not me eh.........I kinda dunce. ok
There was a reason why I decided to stay out of this thread.......need to stick to it
Hmph interestingok and please lets deal with the science of it
I guess science can make sense after all yes science makes a lot of sense when it is used for science