Lol, it's probably the same reason I still respond sometimes.





________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 4:14:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!


Er.  No reason to take it.  Just overlook it like so much on the
discussion groups.  I will argue with him since I like to argue.

Richard G.

On 2/25/2011 12:38 PM, kaylee coats wrote:
>
> Eh, good point. I still don't know why we all take his crap.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Godwin <meta@... <mailto:meta%40npgcable.com>>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 9:44:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!
>
> Is he really a Christian? I think it's doubtful.
>
> Richard G.
>
> On 2/25/2011 7:53 AM, kaylee coats wrote:
> >
> > Oh, like how Christians are all judgmental, extremist, closet perverts?
> > I'm not bald, and I happen to be bi-sexual, not gay.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: praesto12 <Praesto12@... <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 12:13:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!
> >
> > I'm not terrible hurt if I offend an "actual witch." Most of them seem
> > to be
> > self-hating angsty bald lesbians anyhow. :)
> >
> > Are you going Pagan now that you've left the Christian family?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...
> <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 10:22:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!
> >
> > I think that's pretty insulting to actual witches. You may know a lot
> > about
> > Christianity, but you don't know anything about witchcraft.
> > And for your information, the 'pulling away from god' is not through
> > witchcraft
> > or sorcery, it's though simple sense. Other gods and goddesses are far
> > less
> > malicious than the Hebrew god. It makes more sense to follow someone
> > who isn't
> > going to kill you for the slightest offense, doesn't it? That's why
> > Pagans and
> > Satanists do it, not because anyone is being forced through sorcery.
> > Manson and Jones were both using psychological powers rather than
> > witchcraft.
> > They manipulated people through charisma and then through threats.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: praesto12 <Praesto12@... <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 8:29:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!
> >
> > A "Witch" is an individual that uses "sorcery", which possibly means
> > drugs, to
> > actively destroy and pull Individuals, including children, through
> > satanic and
> > paganistic practices away from God. That's the general, very broad
> > definitions.
> > I could go to the hebrew and discuss that as well.
> >
> > I think cult leaders like manson and jim jones would fit the bill in
> > contemporary terms.
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...
> <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 3:41:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > No, I'm just saying that the same people who are known for adultery and
> > pedophilia shouldn't be making the rules for the rest of us.
> >
> > On a side note, I also realize I didn't respond to the witch thing.
> > So, what do
> > you define as a witch that needs to be burned? I define witches as
> > people who
> > practice an ancient religion. If you burn them, you're saying that
> > it's okay to
> > burn anyone of any other religion aside from Christianity.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: praesto12 <Praesto12@... <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:46:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > So people mess up marriages, therefor all sexual relationships are
> > allowable?
> > No. Of course not.
> >
> > Safe sex is better than doing nothing. Safe sex within the loving
> > commited context of marriage is better. Especially if they are
> practicing
> > Christians!
> > It's the best way! There is no hope outside of Christ. As you know.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...
> <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 11:47:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > You still have disease and unwanted children within marriage. Adultery
> > is a huge
> >
> > problem with married couples. In fact, I'm pretty sure that people who
> > are
> > taught to have safe sex and that it is okay and accepted are less
> > likely to have
> >
> > a problem like disease and unwanted pregnancy.
> >
> > No, it is not denying instinct to have morality, in fact real morality
> > is the
> > opposite. It is instinctive to cats, for instance, to want to save the
> > lives of
> > infant animals, even of other species, by nursing them if they are
> > able to do
> > so. It is instinctive for me to not harm another person even if I have
> > the
> > fleeting desire to do so. Why? Not because god told me so, or any
> > other force. A
> >
> > conscience is an inborn thing. As soon as people are developed enough
> > to realize
> >
> > that others have feelings (this is not taught but realized naturally
> > through
> > development) a conscience begins to form. It is INSTINCTIVE, as is any
> > thought
> > process that a person or animal is not taught but comes across
> naturally.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: praesto12 <Praesto12@... <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>
> <mailto:Praesto12%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 8:36:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by a "witch." And yes No Sex before marriage
> > is a
> > important "value." Imagine all the diseases and unwanted kids that
> > come from
> > people have sexual relationships outside of marriage. There was a son
> > that was
> > killed for sin....
> >
> > Christianity is broad term. Chruch history is full of people
> > manipulating other
> >
> > people. So is political history and social history. This doesn't mean
> > that all
> > political thought and all social thought is wrong....burn...
> >
> > What people know "instinictively" is to kill and steal and do
> whatever to
> > survive. It's only in denying out "instinct" that we have any sense
> > of "morality."
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...
> <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sumluvlifilth%40yahoo.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:26:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > Oh, so morals like burning witches and no sex before marriage are real
> > and
> > important. What about taking unruly sons outside the city gates and
> > stoning them
> >
> > to death?
> >
> > Christianity isn't full of real morals, it's full of control-tatics.
> > Real morals
> >
> > are what people know instictively as right and wrong, not advice given
> > by men
> > who saw other people as property or chattel to control.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Richard Godwin <meta@... <mailto:meta%40npgcable.com>
> <mailto:meta%40npgcable.com>>
> > To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:deathtoreligion%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:15:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
> >
> > Christian moral values are real and important. But belief in myths and
> > doctrines is of very little if any value.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

God made a mistake!   Instead of taking HIS WRATH out on JAPAN HE
should have sacked Great Britain.

Think of it; Massive earthquake, tsunami hits USA East Coast, then
bounces back and hits good ol' England.   No More Queen Mum, no more
Warm Beer, no more Prince Charles, no more Picadilly Square, no more
of Di's Kids or Royal Weddings!

Oh Lord, thou hast made a BIG Error!

St Paul's Episcopal Church, on 16th Street, in wonderful Yuma, Arizona
advertises;
             FREE TRIP TO HEAVEN
              DETAILS INSIDE

St Paul's is an "artsie fartsie" Church packed with Doctors, Lawyers
and, Indian Chiefs.

Supposed a 30 year old lawyer who had been sodomizing sheep decided to
repent and join St. Pauls.   He lives to 80.   Thats 50 years of going
to Church before he gets this FREE TRIP TO HEAVEN.

But... he has to give into the collection plate for those 50 years.
That's FREE ?   Also, there's a generous donation to the Building Fund
( better do that if you expect to get clients from the Congregation )
and other such funds.   THAT'S FREE ??????????????

Sounds to me that their advertising is a SCAM ( despite there is NO
HEAVEN ).

Who said he has to give to the collection plate? They may charge for unnecessary
punctuation by people over age 15 though...





________________________________
From: John Ryzek <john_ryzek@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 8:59:59 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Free Trip To Heaven


St Paul's Episcopal Church, on 16th Street, in wonderful Yuma, Arizona
advertises;
FREE TRIP TO HEAVEN
DETAILS INSIDE

St Paul's is an "artsie fartsie" Church packed with Doctors, Lawyers
and, Indian Chiefs.

Supposed a 30 year old lawyer who had been sodomizing sheep decided to
repent and join St. Pauls.   He lives to 80.   Thats 50 years of going
to Church before he gets this FREE TRIP TO HEAVEN.

But... he has to give into the collection plate for those 50 years.
That's FREE ?   Also, there's a generous donation to the Building Fund
( better do that if you expect to get clients from the Congregation )
and other such funds.   THAT'S FREE ??????????????

Sounds to me that their advertising is a SCAM ( despite there is NO
HEAVEN ).







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This may be the funniest post ever.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 <Praesto12@...> wrote:
>
> A "Witch" is an individual that uses "sorcery", which possibly means drugs, to
> actively destroy and pull Individuals, including children, through satanic and
> paganistic practices away from God. That's the general, very broad
definitions.
> I could go to the hebrew and discuss that as well.
>
>
>  I think cult leaders like manson and jim jones would fit the bill in
> contemporary terms. 
>  Richard
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 3:41:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
>  
> No, I'm just saying that the same people who are known for adultery and
> pedophilia shouldn't be making the rules for the rest of us.
>
> On a side note, I also realize I didn't respond to the witch thing. So, what
do
> you define as a witch that needs to be burned? I define witches as people who
> practice an ancient religion. If you burn them, you're saying that it's okay
to
> burn anyone of any other religion aside from Christianity.
>
> ________________________________
> From: praesto12 <Praesto12@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:46:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> So people mess up marriages, therefor all sexual relationships are allowable?
> No. Of course not.
>
> Safe sex is better than doing nothing. Safe sex within the loving
> commited context of marriage is better. Especially if they are practicing
> Christians!
> It's the best way! There is no hope outside of Christ. As you know.
>
> Richard
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 11:47:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> You still have disease and unwanted children within marriage. Adultery is a
huge
>
>
> problem with married couples. In fact, I'm pretty sure that people who are
> taught to have safe sex and that it is okay and accepted are less likely to
have
>
>
> a problem like disease and unwanted pregnancy.
>
> No, it is not denying instinct to have morality, in fact real morality is the
> opposite. It is instinctive to cats, for instance, to want to save the lives
of
> infant animals, even of other species, by nursing them if they are able to do
> so. It is instinctive for me to not harm another person even if I have the
> fleeting desire to do so. Why? Not because god told me so, or any other force.
A
>
>
> conscience is an inborn thing. As soon as people are developed enough to
realize
>
>
> that others have feelings (this is not taught but realized naturally through
> development) a conscience begins to form. It is INSTINCTIVE, as is any thought
> process that a person or animal is not taught but comes across naturally.
>
> ________________________________
> From: praesto12 <Praesto12@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 8:36:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Depends on what you mean by a "witch." And yes No Sex before marriage is a
> important "value." Imagine all the diseases and unwanted kids that come from
> people have sexual relationships outside of marriage. There was a son that was
> killed for sin....
>
> Christianity is broad term. Chruch history is full of people manipulating
other
>
> people. So is political history and social history. This doesn't mean that all
> political thought and all social thought is wrong....burn...
>
> What people know "instinictively" is to kill and steal and do whatever to
> survive. It's only in denying out "instinct" that we have any sense
> of "morality."
>
> Richard
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:26:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Oh, so morals like burning witches and no sex before marriage are real and
> important. What about taking unruly sons outside the city gates and stoning
them
>
>
> to death?
>
> Christianity isn't full of real morals, it's full of control-tatics. Real
morals
>
>
> are what people know instictively as right and wrong, not advice given by men
> who saw other people as property or chattel to control.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:15:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Christian moral values are real and important. But belief in myths and
> doctrines is of very little if any value.
>
> Richard.
>
> On 2/20/2011 5:07 PM, Jack wrote:
> >
> > I lost my faith after studying the history of Christianity, but I
> > never lost my appreciation of the faith. T have very fond thoughts of
> > my church and the congregation who played such an important part in my
> > life. When I came out as an atheist late in life and attempted to join
> > other atheists, I was upset with the amazingly antagonistic attitude
> > that many atheists expressed.
> >
> > I would like to discuss with anybody the values of Christianity and
> > the many objections to religion that atheists quite commonly present.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

It may be funny  or not. It doesn't much matter.
 Richard




________________________________
From: julieg <devasma@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 9:51:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity is awesome!

 
This may be the funniest post ever.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 <Praesto12@...> wrote:
>
> A "Witch" is an individual that uses "sorcery", which possibly means drugs, to

> actively destroy and pull Individuals, including children, through satanic and

> paganistic practices away from God. That's the general, very broad
>definitions.
>
> I could go to the hebrew and discuss that as well.
>
>
>  I think cult leaders like manson and jim jones would fit the bill in
> contemporary terms. 
>  Richard
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 3:41:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
>  
> No, I'm just saying that the same people who are known for adultery and
> pedophilia shouldn't be making the rules for the rest of us.
>
> On a side note, I also realize I didn't respond to the witch thing. So, what
do
>
> you define as a witch that needs to be burned? I define witches as people who
> practice an ancient religion. If you burn them, you're saying that it's okay
to
>
> burn anyone of any other religion aside from Christianity.
>
> ________________________________
> From: praesto12 <Praesto12@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:46:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> So people mess up marriages, therefor all sexual relationships are allowable?
> No. Of course not.
>
> Safe sex is better than doing nothing. Safe sex within the loving
> commited context of marriage is better. Especially if they are practicing
> Christians!
> It's the best way! There is no hope outside of Christ. As you know.
>
> Richard
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 11:47:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> You still have disease and unwanted children within marriage. Adultery is a
>huge
>
>
>
> problem with married couples. In fact, I'm pretty sure that people who are
> taught to have safe sex and that it is okay and accepted are less likely to
>have
>
>
>
> a problem like disease and unwanted pregnancy.
>
> No, it is not denying instinct to have morality, in fact real morality is the
> opposite. It is instinctive to cats, for instance, to want to save the lives
of
>
> infant animals, even of other species, by nursing them if they are able to do
> so. It is instinctive for me to not harm another person even if I have the
> fleeting desire to do so. Why? Not because god told me so, or any other force.
>A
>
>
>
> conscience is an inborn thing. As soon as people are developed enough to
>realize
>
>
>
> that others have feelings (this is not taught but realized naturally through
> development) a conscience begins to form. It is INSTINCTIVE, as is any thought

> process that a person or animal is not taught but comes across naturally.
>
> ________________________________
> From: praesto12 <Praesto12@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 8:36:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Depends on what you mean by a "witch." And yes No Sex before marriage is a
> important "value." Imagine all the diseases and unwanted kids that come from
> people have sexual relationships outside of marriage. There was a son that was

> killed for sin....
>
> Christianity is broad term. Chruch history is full of people manipulating
other
>
>
> people. So is political history and social history. This doesn't mean that all

> political thought and all social thought is wrong....burn...
>
> What people know "instinictively" is to kill and steal and do whatever to
> survive. It's only in denying out "instinct" that we have any sense
> of "morality."
>
> Richard
>
> ________________________________
> From: kaylee coats <sumluvlifilth@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 9:26:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Oh, so morals like burning witches and no sex before marriage are real and
> important. What about taking unruly sons outside the city gates and stoning
>them
>
>
>
> to death?
>
> Christianity isn't full of real morals, it's full of control-tatics. Real
>morals
>
>
>
> are what people know instictively as right and wrong, not advice given by men
> who saw other people as property or chattel to control.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
> To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:15:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] The Value of Christianity
>
> Christian moral values are real and important. But belief in myths and
> doctrines is of very little if any value.
>
> Richard.
>
> On 2/20/2011 5:07 PM, Jack wrote:
> >
> > I lost my faith after studying the history of Christianity, but I
> > never lost my appreciation of the faith. T have very fond thoughts of
> > my church and the congregation who played such an important part in my
> > life. When I came out as an atheist late in life and attempted to join
> > other atheists, I was upset with the amazingly antagonistic attitude
> > that many atheists expressed.
> >
> > I would like to discuss with anybody the values of Christianity and
> > the many objections to religion that atheists quite commonly present.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just finished reading a trilogy by Michael Shermer
(http://www.michaelshermer.com/) that may interest you folks:

"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other
Confusions of Our Time"

"How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God"

and

"The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow
the Golden Rule"

In the first book,Shermer dwells way too long on Holocaust deniers, and in "good
and evil", he does the same on the guy who shot Reagan (I can't remember the
shooter's name right now), but for the most part they are interesting reading.

Rodg

Week old article. Sorry if it was already posted. I got the link from
all places, a guild I'm in in an MMORPG game.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844

   iReport —

A research group in Canada, has proven that the Old Testament has been
massively mistranslated.

This follows three years of research, which have uncovered the actual
system for translating ancient Hebrew.

The group discovered that each letter is not a letter at all, but a full
word, and what was believed to be a word, is actually a sentence like
description, which supplies the definition of the word.  With this
discovery, each word can now be properly defined and the results are
astounding.

This means a word can no longer be disputed and swayed by doctrinal
pressures

If accurate, the findings will rewrite everything we presently believe
about the scriptual beginnings of the Earth.

Research Head Christopher Tyreman states that what they have found,
proves without a doubt, that the Bible has been grossly mistranslated
and that their findings expose this fact with glaring simplicity.  He
further stated that he finds it interesting that a group of lay
researchers were able to see and assemble what they call "Self Defining
Hebrew or the SDH System" while experts seemed unaware of its existence.

The team also wished people to understand that this is not a bible code,
but the system the original language was built on.

Its construct shows it to be a manufactured system of massive
complexity, using only twenty two words, which when mixed, can supply a
complete language.

Mr. Tyreman also added that the form of this language shows it could not
have evolved from surrounding cultures as it is incapable of importing
words from outside language.  This alone points to an origination
outside of the scope of the presently held theories of language
development.  These findings could have a major impact on how Science
and religion look at our beginnings.



The research team has posted all of its work online @
http://www.thechronicleproject.org

I suspect that might be the work of a bunch of cranks, that all the linguists
could be so wrong about ancient Hebrew just doesn't make much sense to me (also
that they were able to get meaning out of it to, if they were trying to read a
completely different language than what it was written in they should only get
gibberish).

It's possible that these lay researchers actually have uncovered something, but
I'm inclined to think they're just a bunch of crackpots who don't really know
what they're doing.  Their web site pretty clearly marks them as cranks who had
a conclusion in mind before they started.

To quote from their research notes:
"The breakthrough in our understanding began with the concept that rather than
an evolved language, it might be exactly as it described itself, the language of
God."

While they say they aren't like all the bible code nonsense I will have to
disagree.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:
>
> Week old article. Sorry if it was already posted. I got the link from
> all places, a guild I'm in in an MMORPG game.
>
> http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844
>
>   iReport —
>
> A research group in Canada, has proven that the Old Testament has been
> massively mistranslated.
>
> This follows three years of research, which have uncovered the actual
> system for translating ancient Hebrew.
>
> The group discovered that each letter is not a letter at all, but a full
> word, and what was believed to be a word, is actually a sentence like
> description, which supplies the definition of the word.  With this
> discovery, each word can now be properly defined and the results are
> astounding.
>
> This means a word can no longer be disputed and swayed by doctrinal
> pressures
>
> If accurate, the findings will rewrite everything we presently believe
> about the scriptual beginnings of the Earth.
>
> Research Head Christopher Tyreman states that what they have found,
> proves without a doubt, that the Bible has been grossly mistranslated
> and that their findings expose this fact with glaring simplicity.  He
> further stated that he finds it interesting that a group of lay
> researchers were able to see and assemble what they call "Self Defining
> Hebrew or the SDH System" while experts seemed unaware of its existence.
>
> The team also wished people to understand that this is not a bible code,
> but the system the original language was built on.
>
> Its construct shows it to be a manufactured system of massive
> complexity, using only twenty two words, which when mixed, can supply a
> complete language.
>
> Mr. Tyreman also added that the form of this language shows it could not
> have evolved from surrounding cultures as it is incapable of importing
> words from outside language.  This alone points to an origination
> outside of the scope of the presently held theories of language
> development.  These findings could have a major impact on how Science
> and religion look at our beginnings.
>
>
>
> The research team has posted all of its work online @
> http://www.thechronicleproject.org
>

I think it is the Hebrew of the Code, not the Bible code theory that doesn't
make any sense, but a special code in the editing of the HB during the
Hellenistic period.  I think these guys are right on target.  But I don't think
they actually will break the code.  I don't see any possible way any intelligent
being would claim they are a bunch of crackpots who don't know what they're
doing.  Besides obviously you know absolutely nothing about this!  Why don't you
go it and then comment:   http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

This is not the language of God, nor was it meant to be in the writing of the HB
or anytime.  It has no connection with the Bible Codes, and it is very from
being like that.  The two are opposite ways of interpreting the Bible.

Richard.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:18 PM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Researchers Prove Bible Grossly Mistranslated



   I suspect that might be the work of a bunch of cranks, that all the linguists
could be so wrong about ancient Hebrew just doesn't make much sense to me (also
that they were able to get meaning out of it to, if they were trying to read a
completely different language than what it was written in they should only get
gibberish).

   It's possible that these lay researchers actually have uncovered something,
but I'm inclined to think they're just a bunch of crackpots who don't really
know what they're doing. Their web site pretty clearly marks them as cranks who
had a conclusion in mind before they started.

   To quote from their research notes:
   "The breakthrough in our understanding began with the concept that rather than
an evolved language, it might be exactly as it described itself, the language of
God."

   While they say they aren't like all the bible code nonsense I will have to
disagree.

   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <cy2600@...> wrote:
   >
   > Week old article. Sorry if it was already posted. I got the link from
   > all places, a guild I'm in in an MMORPG game.
   >
   > http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844
   >
   > iReport -
   >
   > A research group in Canada, has proven that the Old Testament has been
   > massively mistranslated.
   >
   > This follows three years of research, which have uncovered the actual
   > system for translating ancient Hebrew.
   >
   > The group discovered that each letter is not a letter at all, but a full
   > word, and what was believed to be a word, is actually a sentence like
   > description, which supplies the definition of the word. With this
   > discovery, each word can now be properly defined and the results are
   > astounding.
   >
   > This means a word can no longer be disputed and swayed by doctrinal
   > pressures
   >
   > If accurate, the findings will rewrite everything we presently believe
   > about the scriptual beginnings of the Earth.
   >
   > Research Head Christopher Tyreman states that what they have found,
   > proves without a doubt, that the Bible has been grossly mistranslated
   > and that their findings expose this fact with glaring simplicity. He
   > further stated that he finds it interesting that a group of lay
   > researchers were able to see and assemble what they call "Self Defining
   > Hebrew or the SDH System" while experts seemed unaware of its existence.
   >
   > The team also wished people to understand that this is not a bible code,
   > but the system the original language was built on.
   >
   > Its construct shows it to be a manufactured system of massive
   > complexity, using only twenty two words, which when mixed, can supply a
   > complete language.
   >
   > Mr. Tyreman also added that the form of this language shows it could not
   > have evolved from surrounding cultures as it is incapable of importing
   > words from outside language. This alone points to an origination
   > outside of the scope of the presently held theories of language
   > development. These findings could have a major impact on how Science
   > and religion look at our beginnings.
   >
   >
   >
   > The research team has posted all of its work online @
   > http://www.thechronicleproject.org
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> I think it is the Hebrew of the Code, not the Bible code theory
> that doesn't make any sense, but a special code in the editing of
> the HB during the Hellenistic period.  I think these guys are right
> on target.  But I don't think they actually will break the code.  I
> don't see any possible way any intelligent being would claim they
> are a bunch of crackpots who don't know what they're doing.

Could it be because they look like they don't really know what they're doing? 
Could it be that they're claiming that everyone else (who have studied the
language and literature written in it for decades) is wrong?

Give it some time and I'm sure we'll see an expert take them right down.

>  Besides obviously you know absolutely nothing about this!  Why
> don't you go it and then comment:
> http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

Did you not notice me quote directly from them?

> This is not the language of God, nor was it meant to be in the
> writing of the HB or anytime.  It has no connection with the Bible
> Codes, and it is very from being like that.  The two are opposite
> ways of interpreting the Bible.

I wouldn't say they are all that far away, while the methods may be somewhat
different the underlying aim is to find a message in the bible no one else has
found and I see no reason to suspect that what these guys have found is any more
valid than bible codes.

What do they look like?  If credible, what would you expect them to look like? 
What's wrong with the claim other translators are wrong because they don't know
what they know?  I can claim you are wrong by claiming the meaning of a Greek
word because it is wrong and I can prove it?

Yes, I agree to give it time, but you are prejudiced by assuming what the result
would be.  That is not being intellectually honest.

Notice how reputable peer-reviewed scientists thought Einstein was crazy.

Richard.




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:42 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Researchers Prove Bible Grossly Mistranslated



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
   >
   > I think it is the Hebrew of the Code, not the Bible code theory
   > that doesn't make any sense, but a special code in the editing of
   > the HB during the Hellenistic period. I think these guys are right
   > on target. But I don't think they actually will break the code. I
   > don't see any possible way any intelligent being would claim they
   > are a bunch of crackpots who don't know what they're doing.

   Could it be because they look like they don't really know what they're doing?
Could it be that they're claiming that everyone else (who have studied the
language and literature written in it for decades) is wrong?

   Give it some time and I'm sure we'll see an expert take them right down.

   > Besides obviously you know absolutely nothing about this! Why
   > don't you go it and then comment:
   > http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

   Did you not notice me quote directly from them?

   > This is not the language of God, nor was it meant to be in the
   > writing of the HB or anytime. It has no connection with the Bible
   > Codes, and it is very from being like that. The two are opposite
   > ways of interpreting the Bible.

   I wouldn't say they are all that far away, while the methods may be somewhat
different the underlying aim is to find a message in the bible no one else has
found and I see no reason to suspect that what these guys have found is any more
valid than bible codes.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> What do they look like?  If credible, what would you expect them to
> look like?  What's wrong with the claim other translators are wrong
> because they don't know what they know?  I can claim you are wrong
> by claiming the meaning of a Greek word because it is wrong and I
> can prove it?
>
> Yes, I agree to give it time, but you are prejudiced by assuming
> what the result would be.  That is not being intellectually honest.

Usually when amateurs say things like that they are wrong, every so often one of
them gets it right but it is very rare.

Whilst I wouldn't put any stock in theology (which I do not consider a subject)
I'm quite willing to call linguistics a real science and to state that if a
person who hasn't got training in a language says that everyone else has got it
wrong that they are probably the one who is wrong.

What they're proposing would require throwing out most of what we know about the
Hebrew language.

> Notice how reputable peer-reviewed scientists thought Einstein was
> crazy.

Yet they accepted special relativity, the photoelectric effect and the existence
of atoms (though Einstein wasn't actually the first to show what Brownian motion
implied) very quickly.  There was also rapid acceptance of general relativity
later on as well.

Later in his life when he began to doubt some of the implications of quantum
mechanics was when other physicists started to think of him as going a bit off
(and it turned out they were right).

"Usually"?  So are trying to enforce some ad populum fallacy?  How do you know
they are amateurs, and that to what meaning?  How do you know they are not
trained in the Hebrew language?  They certainly use it as if they are very
highly trained.

No, not even they claim all knowledge of the Hebrew language should be thrown
out.  They do claim it should be reconsidered or reinterpreted.

I was talking about Einstein's revolutionary theory of relativity.  It was
accepted by scientists only after much pain. See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" with "paradigm shift."   QM is very different.  The
point is that contrary to your assessment paradigm shifts have occurred, even in
science.  Your trying to deflect this onto something else, not relevant does not
help your cause.

Richard.





   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:34 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Researchers Prove Bible Grossly Mistranslated



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
   >
   > What do they look like? If credible, what would you expect them to
   > look like? What's wrong with the claim other translators are wrong
   > because they don't know what they know? I can claim you are wrong
   > by claiming the meaning of a Greek word because it is wrong and I
   > can prove it?
   >
   > Yes, I agree to give it time, but you are prejudiced by assuming
   > what the result would be. That is not being intellectually honest.

   Usually when amateurs say things like that they are wrong, every so often one
of them gets it right but it is very rare.

   Whilst I wouldn't put any stock in theology (which I do not consider a
subject) I'm quite willing to call linguistics a real science and to state that
if a person who hasn't got training in a language says that everyone else has
got it wrong that they are probably the one who is wrong.

   What they're proposing would require throwing out most of what we know about
the Hebrew language.

   > Notice how reputable peer-reviewed scientists thought Einstein was
   > crazy.

   Yet they accepted special relativity, the photoelectric effect and the
existence of atoms (though Einstein wasn't actually the first to show what
Brownian motion implied) very quickly. There was also rapid acceptance of
general relativity later on as well.

   Later in his life when he began to doubt some of the implications of quantum
mechanics was when other physicists started to think of him as going a bit off
(and it turned out they were right).





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> "Usually"?  So are trying to enforce some ad populum fallacy?

No, simply stating that that's how it turns out most of the time.

Most people who think the experts are wrong themselves are the ones who are
wrong, there are exceptions and it is possible that this is one of those cases
but I have not seen anything to make me believe that is likely to happen.

> How do you know they are amateurs, and that to what meaning?

If they have any qualifications with regard to the Hebrew language they don't
seem to be telling anyone..

> How do you know they are not trained in the Hebrew language?  They
> certainly use it as if they are very highly trained.

They seem self-taught.

> No, not even they claim all knowledge of the Hebrew language should
> be thrown out.  They do claim it should be reconsidered or
> reinterpreted.

The amount of reinterpretation their claims would require is such that you may
as well be throwing out what we know of it.

> I was talking about Einstein's revolutionary theory of relativity.

The one that was accepted as a better description of reality than an aether
theory very quickly.

> It was accepted by scientists only after much pain.

No it wasn't, actually it was pretty much an inevitability as others had already
begun laying the groundwork to the point at which it was only a small minority
of scientists who preferred an aether not very long after it was first
published.

Besides, the scientific community had a puzzle (actually many) that needed
explanation.

> The point is that contrary to your assessment paradigm shifts have
> occurred, even in science.

You are trying to overstate things, in science when someone shows a new better
theory and can prove it the scientific community as a whole tends to rapidly
accept it (as happened with relativity, QM, continental drift (once the
mechanism was found), etc).

What do you know about Hebrew?
 Richard




________________________________
From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 12:34:04 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Researchers Prove Bible Grossly Mistranslated

 
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> What do they look like? If credible, what would you expect them to
> look like? What's wrong with the claim other translators are wrong
> because they don't know what they know? I can claim you are wrong
> by claiming the meaning of a Greek word because it is wrong and I
> can prove it?
>
> Yes, I agree to give it time, but you are prejudiced by assuming
> what the result would be. That is not being intellectually honest.

Usually when amateurs say things like that they are wrong, every so often one of
them gets it right but it is very rare.

Whilst I wouldn't put any stock in theology (which I do not consider a subject)
I'm quite willing to call linguistics a real science and to state that if a
person who hasn't got training in a language says that everyone else has got it
wrong that they are probably the one who is wrong.

What they're proposing would require throwing out most of what we know about the
Hebrew language.

> Notice how reputable peer-reviewed scientists thought Einstein was
> crazy.

Yet they accepted special relativity, the photoelectric effect and the existence
of atoms (though Einstein wasn't actually the first to show what Brownian motion
implied) very quickly. There was also rapid acceptance of general relativity
later on as well.

Later in his life when he began to doubt some of the implications of quantum
mechanics was when other physicists started to think of him as going a bit off
(and it turned out they were right).




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No, but that has no relevance.  This is their statement (notice not a
translation but a restoration, and "We are well versed regarding history,
development, and present understanding of the language. Apparently, Chris
Tyreman doesn't even know Hebrew, much less a Hebrew scholar.  I find this very
suspicious, especially his "profile", but we don't know about the other members
of this "project."  Who are the "we"?

What We Have Discovered

The following work is NOT a translation, but a restoration. It is the
application of the newly discovered Self Defining Hebrew (or SDH) system, which
was built into the ancient Hebrew language by its creator(s).

1. It is capable of defining a word from its revealed concept, because each
letter in the Hebrew language has been found to be its own separate universal
concept (see prime glyph set page in the research notes) and so a complete
description of an item has been found to be in what was once thought of as a
single word.

2. Once a word has been properly divided and defined, a definition applies to
every placement of it in a text. One word, one definition. This is unlike
standard translations which can use up to 84 different definitions for a single
Hebrew word, because the initial definition is in error.

3. Each word can now be properly defined, even by a beginner with minimal help,
thus speeding up the learning curve. Remember though, this site has only just
begun and it is an ongoing work which will be posted as completed.

4. Due to the fact each word has a visible definition from its own description;
doctrinal pressures can no longer sway the translation.

This discovery is not intended to create a new sect or division. It is intended
only for the purpose of revealing the Hebrew text as close to its original form
as we can.

Please do not send an email regarding the history of the language as is
presently understood. We are well versed regarding history, development, and
present understanding of the language, but thank you for the consideration.


Chris Tyreman represents the group, calls himself "Research Head."



From google, there are three professionals with this name.  The one here lives
in Saskatoon, Canada and is a member of the "Resistance Group" and here is his
profile:



What is your current spiritual level of innerstanding?

Observer

Here at the Resistance We only cater to the activation of the Spirit Body do you
innerstand this?

Yes

Have you made contact with other life forms, spirits, gods, etc?

Yes

We are only concerned with the color of your Aura not of your skin do you
Innerstand this?

Yes

How did you find out about the Resistance?

Other

If other what other source did you find out about the Resistance?

someone came to my site

It is of value to know that We are here for you and any infractions of the
protocols mentioned above will result in immediate banning in order to respect
others. Are you aware of this?

yes



This tends to reject his credence.



Richard.






   ----- Original Message -----
   From: praesto12
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:38 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   What do you know about Hebrew?
    Richard

   ________________________________
   From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 12:34:04 PM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Researchers Prove Bible Grossly Mistranslated


   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
   >
   > What do they look like? If credible, what would you expect them to
   > look like? What's wrong with the claim other translators are wrong
   > because they don't know what they know? I can claim you are wrong
   > by claiming the meaning of a Greek word because it is wrong and I
   > can prove it?
   >
   > Yes, I agree to give it time, but you are prejudiced by assuming
   > what the result would be. That is not being intellectually honest.

   Usually when amateurs say things like that they are wrong, every so often one
of
   them gets it right but it is very rare.

   Whilst I wouldn't put any stock in theology (which I do not consider a
subject)
   I'm quite willing to call linguistics a real science and to state that if a
   person who hasn't got training in a language says that everyone else has got
it
   wrong that they are probably the one who is wrong.

   What they're proposing would require throwing out most of what we know about
the
   Hebrew language.

   > Notice how reputable peer-reviewed scientists thought Einstein was
   > crazy.

   Yet they accepted special relativity, the photoelectric effect and the
existence
   of atoms (though Einstein wasn't actually the first to show what Brownian
motion
   implied) very quickly. There was also rapid acceptance of general relativity
   later on as well.

   Later in his life when he began to doubt some of the implications of quantum
   mechanics was when other physicists started to think of him as going a bit off
   (and it turned out they were right).

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
>
> What do you know about Hebrew?

Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is written
right to left).

I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
what's really going on there).

It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first. Rabbis
consider it to be the template of God, so to speak. It's one of those things
I'd
like to study more, but alas I am only a finite being .

 Richard




________________________________
From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:32:04 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

 
--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
>
> What do you know about Hebrew?

Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is written
right to left).

I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
what's really going on there).




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course I am no expert, now even knowledgeable of the Hebrew language.  I
studied only Greek.

My MO is first not to be prejudiced or biased, and second to gather the facts,
suspending any decision until my examination, but more importantly that of
experts, the biblical scholars.

Now I believe I have enough FACTS to rule this out as mere child-play.  Most
revealing is what these seven people (3 male, 4 female) say about themselves. 
From what they say, I feel sure they are not lying!  You can read this at the
site under "About Us."  I think they have no credibility at all for what they
did, or may have done.  It may be from someone else, which I think is the case. 
But I think they are just having fun.

What remains is what was produced itself:  How can that be judged?  Not by me,
but I hope some linguists in the language come forward.

Anyway til then, I've had enough of it.

Richard G.






   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:32 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
   >
   > What do you know about Hebrew?

   Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is
written right to left).

   I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
what's really going on there).





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So there's that other Richard.  See my other post please.

Richard G.




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: praesto12
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:05 AM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first. Rabbis
   consider it to be the template of God, so to speak. It's one of those things
I'd
   like to study more, but alas I am only a finite being .

    Richard

   ________________________________
   From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:32:04 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?


   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
   >
   > What do you know about Hebrew?

   Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is
written
   right to left).

   I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
   themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
   what's really going on there).

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 <Praesto12@...> wrote:
>
> It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first.

Most of the linguistics community would disagree on the second point (though
probably agree on the first, it certainly was influential though).

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>
> Now I believe I have enough FACTS to rule this out as mere
> child-play.  Most revealing is what these seven people (3 male, 4
> female) say about themselves.  From what they say, I feel sure they
> are not lying!

I certainly don't think they're trying to deceive us, I suspect they've managed
to deceive themselves though.

> What remains is what was produced itself:  How can that be judged?
> Not by me, but I hope some linguists in the language come forward.
>
> Anyway til then, I've had enough of it.

It seems to have got some attention so hopefully someone knowledgeable will (or
maybe already is) look at it.

I agree.  I just see them playing, and not really deceiving themselves.  Having
fun doesn't require being deceived.  However, that in itself does not falsify
their theory, which I firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some
other source, that of scholarship.  Where is it?

Richard.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:55 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
   >
   > Now I believe I have enough FACTS to rule this out as mere
   > child-play. Most revealing is what these seven people (3 male, 4
   > female) say about themselves. From what they say, I feel sure they
   > are not lying!

   I certainly don't think they're trying to deceive us, I suspect they've
managed to deceive themselves though.

   > What remains is what was produced itself: How can that be judged?
   > Not by me, but I hope some linguists in the language come forward.
   >
   > Anyway til then, I've had enough of it.

   It seems to have got some attention so hopefully someone knowledgeable will
(or maybe already is) look at it.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
>
> I agree.  I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
> themselves.

They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
they've found something revolutionary.

> Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

> However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
> firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
> source, that of scholarship.  Where is it?

Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

I think you don't like me Godwin because I call you out on the weird hybrid
garbage you call ...well I don't know, what do you call what you believe? I
don't think you know? Has life humbled you some my friend?

 Richard




________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 12:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

 
So there's that other Richard. See my other post please.

Richard G.

----- Original Message -----
From: praesto12
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first. Rabbis
consider it to be the template of God, so to speak. It's one of those things I'd

like to study more, but alas I am only a finite being .

Richard

________________________________
From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:32:04 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
>
> What do you know about Hebrew?

Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is written

right to left).

I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
what's really going on there).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm just trying to remember who you are, other than having the same first name
as mine.  I said see my other post on my extensive comments on the Chronicle
group.

So what are you talking about now?  Who's life?  Smoke another one and try
again.

Richard.



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: praesto12
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:46 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   I think you don't like me Godwin because I call you out on the weird hybrid
   garbage you call ...well I don't know, what do you call what you believe? I
   don't think you know? Has life humbled you some my friend?

    Richard

   ________________________________
   From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 12:22:03 PM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?


   So there's that other Richard. See my other post please.

   Richard G.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: praesto12
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:05 AM
   Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

   It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first. Rabbis
   consider it to be the template of God, so to speak. It's one of those things
I'd

   like to study more, but alas I am only a finite being .

   Richard

   ________________________________
   From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:32:04 AM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
   >
   > What do you know about Hebrew?

   Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is
written

   right to left).

   I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
   themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
   what's really going on there).

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OK.  No problem.  You may be right.

But the "restoration" DOES make some sense.  Look at what they have in Gen. 1. 
Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own.  So they have
"the supreme ones".  I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
gods."  And it has earth pre-existing.  That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
probably not.  The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
pre-existing myth,  And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
the head.  When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
Genesis 1.  Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11?  We also have good reason to think the whole
Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and
Manetho for Exodus.

Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

Richard



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bestonnet_00
   To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
   Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



   --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
   >
   > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
   > themselves.

   They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
they've found something revolutionary.

   > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

   Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

   > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
   > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
   > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

   Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as
being the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Conjecture and lies Godwin.
 




________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

 
OK. No problem. You may be right.

But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
"the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and
Manetho for Exodus.

Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: bestonnet_00
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
>
> I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
> themselves.

They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
they've found something revolutionary.

> Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

> However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
> firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
> source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"So there's that other Richard. See my other post please." A bit vague.

 




________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 10:58:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

 
I'm just trying to remember who you are, other than having the same first name
as mine. I said see my other post on my extensive comments on the Chronicle
group.

So what are you talking about now? Who's life? Smoke another one and try again.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: praesto12
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

I think you don't like me Godwin because I call you out on the weird hybrid
garbage you call ...well I don't know, what do you call what you believe? I
don't think you know? Has life humbled you some my friend?

Richard

________________________________
From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 12:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

So there's that other Richard. See my other post please.

Richard G.

----- Original Message -----
From: praesto12
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

It's a very interesting language. Some believe it to be the first. Rabbis
consider it to be the template of God, so to speak. It's one of those things I'd


like to study more, but alas I am only a finite being .

Richard

________________________________
From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:32:04 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, praesto12 wrote:
>
> What do you know about Hebrew?

Not very much (I certainly can't read or speak it though I do know it is written


right to left).

I'm pretty much relying on looking at the way they are organised and conduct
themselves (while waiting for an expert to eventually chime in and explain
what's really going on there).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]