ydoaPs

Keep the pseudoscience where it belongs.

A manuscript and a translation are two different things. Manuscript refers to an individual copy whereas translation refers to what "Version" is used. Before the advent of the printing press, manuscripts were copied by hand. Errors were introduced at times(sometimes accidental, sometimes not). A good book for an introduction to the concept is Misquoting Jesus. I asked for a reason. Go back and read post #25. If you want me to explain why I asked again, just let me know.

I never said anything about translation. I did, however, ask about the manuscript. I never said anything about the wording of Gen 1. Go and actually read what I did say. Look at post #25 like you said you would.

No, I didn't. Please refrain from strawmanning me.

YOU are making claims about YOUR work. It falls upon YOU to show YOUR work. YOU have the burden of proof. It seems you have moved from ad hoc to ad hom. Nice.

Still waiting.....

Are you dense or scared? Seriously, I'm still waiting.

So, the only intelligent replies are the ones that are supportive of you? What an ego. lol You've still not shown how. No. Your claim is that in a time of minuscule literacy, a document was written(most likely dictated by someone who wasn't even literate) containing a code which only works when a "shift value" is calculated from a document written centuries later in a different language. How is that not an extraordinary claim? Where? It sure wasn't in this thread. Yes there is. Another interpretation is this is bad numerology which only works ad hoc. I didn't say anything about the first seven words. You're still not answering important questions. Does the code apply to only the first seven words of Genesis, the entire document, or the entire bible(or any other combination). You've at least used the first seven words of Genesis and part of John. Different manuscripts exist(that's part of how we date them), so if the code applies to entire documents(or groups of documents), then it would only apply to certain manuscripts.

Do you even know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are? Again, still waiting.

Did you know that in the earlier manuscripts the number of the beast wasn't 666? Wow, I guess the manuscript used is starting to matter. Still waiting on the reply to post 25.

Read post #25 and re-evaluate your chances. What prophecy?

The entirety of post #25.

Hmmm....still ignoring me?

Please respond to post #25.

How does your explanation of the configuration of the NUCLEUS describe the electron configuration? So, you agree the ions have different chemical properties? How does this difference in electron configuration affect the tetrahedral sphere packing of the nucleus?

lol You've still not shown how. No. Your claim is that in a time of minuscule literacy, a document was written(most likely dictated by someone who wasn't even literate) containing a code which only works when a "shift value" is calculated from a document written centuries later in a different language. How is that not an extraordinary claim? Where? It sure wasn't in this thread. Yes there is. Another interpretation is this is bad numerology which only works ad hoc. I didn't say anything about the first seven words. You're still not answering important questions. Does the code apply to only the first seven words of Genesis, the entire document, or the entire bible(or any other combination). You've at least used the first seven words of Genesis and part of John. Different manuscripts exist(that's part of how we date them), so if the code applies to entire documents(or groups of documents), then it would only apply to certain manuscripts.

How do you justify calculating your "shift value" from a separate book which not only is written in a different language by a different author but is written MUCH MUCH later? Don't you think that's a little ad hoc? How so? Is that supposed to be a variant of the Courtier's Reply? Burden of proof is upon you, and as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Now that you are using other works, it IS relevant that manuscripts vary. Which manuscripts are you using and why?

If you've seen them with your own eyes, then you'd know they aren't the whole bible. Be more clear. Is the code in the first seven words, or the entire collection of books? You've done no more than Jim Carrey did in 23. Burden of proof is upon you to show that they are. Why even bring up Greek? Why didn't you use Hebrew as your example? How did you come up with the "shift values"?

I have read it. You've not explained it. How do you account that different ions of the same element have different chemical properties?

I thought reputation is only positive. How do we have negative scores? We start with 10 points, right? And each rep you receive is 5 points?

Chemistry is about the electrons, not the nucleus. How does tetrahedral sphere packing effect electron configuration?

You've not seen them, have you? Sure about that? What about your example from John? Are you now backpeddling and saying the "code" is only in the first 7 words? Given the literacy rate at the time of the writing, I'd like to see some references here. Oh? No, you haven't.

No differing manuscripts exist? So, what, the rest are fakes? Which one is real? Also, how many manuscripts of John are in Hebrew? Oh, really? Codes in text are popular in a time when literacy wasn't? That's rich. Have you ever seen the Jim Carrey movie 23?

Which copy does this work with? You do know manuscripts vary, right? If it's so complicated and intricate(such that you even said the people wondered why it would be such a lengthy coding process), why would you assume it is really a code? Wouldn't it make more sense that they are trying to find intentional patterns where none exist?

Good for you.