On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in fact,
> know this about the name יהוה
> The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely Yahwee
> than anything else but hard to tell since the language has evolved so
> much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely to come
> from the names of the characters that form the name which are; Jod,
> He, Vau an He.
>
Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are
other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take
them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds more
like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as it
has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the
letter that, in some letters, completely changes the pronunciation.
For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is
pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a 'B'}
that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the word
with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels associated
with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o',
short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used colloquially,
"my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first
person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH. That
was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've
always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the
search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the sin of
'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance.
'Twould serve us right. ;-)
> On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I look for
> > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be employing 11
> > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to the "One"
> > > or God as I like to call it?
>
> > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling you now.
> > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic string
> > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic fields, the
> > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products of the
> > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the
> > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM, Gravity,
> > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force and can
> > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of those 26
> > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the remaining 10
> > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which
> > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and, in a
> > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract concepts we use
> > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). It is my
> > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in fact, a 16-
> > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10
> > dimensions expand.
>
> > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the
> > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory and
> > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. My
> > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible space-
> > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and how THEY
> > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and only with
> > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and 'the
> > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He did. And
> > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm not sure
> > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH (commonly
> > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I really
> > don't think that was by chance.
>
> > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of something. You cannot
> > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes are manmade and
> > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. Omnipotent,
> > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding so that we can
> > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any religion in this
> > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic and not a
> > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, they believe in
> > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their faith. Some
> > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such activities. I
> > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much above us and
> > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual acceptance.
>
> > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of evidence--
> > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily enough, it is
> > > > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm afraid that I,
> > > > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written that book.
> > > > And that will be done. You and many others believe that God is so far
> > > > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand Him. In the
> > > > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very end simply
> > > > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no one else
> > > > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, well,
> > > > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that, then,
> > > > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and obligation. I'll
> > > > never fill in all the fine details, but I will pin down enough that
> > > > the concept (of God) will be known and will be discussed, because it
> > > > is my firm belief that God is NOT so transcendant as to be completely
> > > > beyond our comprehension, rather, His immanence gives Him a closeness
> > > > to us all that we, each of us, can hold on to and learn from within.
> > > > All that is needed is a roadmap and a few guideposts and I'm working
> > > > on them.
>
> > > > I do agree with you that "energy is something and God is the source of
> > > > something". I agree with that through extending that energy back TO
> > > > its source. Essentially, God is a multi-dimensional object of stringy
> > > > energy that is twisted and contorted in such a way as to produce all
> > > > that is in this 4-D universe as well as everything in any heaven and
> > > > hell and many other places, as well. This, God does by extending
> > > > Himself through those dimensions and using the ends of those
> > > > extensions to interact with one another to produce all that exists.
> > > > It is His obligation to do that, as there is nothing ELSE that can.
>
> > > > > On Apr 28, 4:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 28 Apr, 11:55, RP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather everything
> > > > > > > emanates
> > > > > > > from him. He is above all attributes and the source of all.
>
> > > > > > I would completely refute that. To date, we have discovered nothing
> > > > > > that exists that is not comprised of energy. It is energy that
> > > > > > exists. If you can find something that is NOT energy, then, please,
> > > > > > do so and take the Nobel Prize in Physics. If God does not consist
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > 'something', then He must consist of 'nothing' and nothing can EVER
> > > > > > come from nothing. Rather, God must consist of some substance and,
> > > > > > the only underlying substance we have ever discovered is energy,
> > > > > > albeit in countless 'forms'. Nothin could emanate from nothing. So
> > > > > > that statement, too, I refute. Rather, everything emantates from
> > > > > > (or,
> > > > > > as I would term it, everything is an extension of) God. He has many
> > > > > > attributes, 99 according to Islam. I can use just three to derive
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > rest from. If He is completely beyond attributes, He can do
> > > > > > nothing.
> > > > > > Therefore, if you state that He has no attributes, then He is NOT
> > > > > > omnipotent, as omnipotence is an attribute. Without omnipotenece,
> > > > > > He
> > > > > > is impotent. And, even Impotence would be an attribute. But it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > be no attribute of an effective deity. He cannot be the source of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > if He is, in fact, nothing (made of any substance or energy), as you
> > > > > > suggest. Do try to re-think this one. I would bet every soul on my
> > > > > > statement that God is an entity of energy (and that is a very heavy
> > > > > > bet, indeed). Are you that sure of your statements, as stated,
> > > > > > above?
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 27, 4:50 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 26 Apr, 22:48, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Hi everybody!
> > > > > > > > > This thread for me is just great, as it seems to describe God
> > > > > > > > > in a way
> > > > > > > > > that even the atheist may accept and it is more or less just
> > > > > > > > > as I see
> > > > > > > > > God. Just to say my own personal views I am going to describe
> > > > > > > > > my God
> > > > > > > > > for you thus:
> > > > > > > > > God may well be the positive-life-energy that exists in the
> > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > universe; therefore, God is life and life is God himself and
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > cannot exist without the other. We should believe in God,
> > > > > > > > > because if
> > > > > > > > > God is not there, there is no life and we are all dead. What
> > > > > > > > > do you
> > > > > > > > > think? Do you think I maybe right about it?
> > > > > > > > > My regards to everyone
> > > > > > > > > Manfraco
>
> > > > > > > > Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. If we equate
> > > > > > > > energy (be
> > > > > > > > that positive or negative or matter/antimatter) with 'the
> > > > > > > > substance of
> > > > > > > > God', that is, the 'stuff' that God is made of, then everything
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > exists is made of that God-originating substance. That is my
> > > > > > > > view on
> > > > > > > > it. If we deny that energy exists, we're idiots, because it
> > > > > > > > does.
> > > > > > > > The question is: Is that energy somehow joined and, if so, how
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > where? These are the bases for my theory and I show how and
> > > > > > > > where the
> > > > > > > > energy is joined. Once that energy is 'unified' or, more
> > > > > > > > precisely,
> > > > > > > > shown to be undivided, then we can discuss that energy as a
> > > > > > > > 'whole'.
> > > > > > > > And that 'whole' is everywhere energy is, throughout all of
> > > > > > > > space-
> > > > > > > > time, therefore omnipresent. That energy is, because it is
> > > > > > > > joined
> > > > > > > > (or, rather, never divided in the first place!), only one
> > > > > > > > entity made
> > > > > > > > of energy. That entity is the only actor in the system and is,
> > > > > > > > therefore, omnipotent. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms
> > > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > in consciousness, if there is only one, indivisible actor in the
> > > > > > > > system, then ALL consciousness is retained by that entity,
> > > > > > > > therefore,
> > > > > > > > that entity is omniscient. Thus, the entity is omnipresent,
> > > > > > > > omnipotent
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
