Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "How to follow Hyperion Entertainment and become an Entertainer"
kaaloxi (1993)

How to follow Hyperion Entertainment and become an Entertainer

Direct link to this message

How to follow Hyperion Entertainment and become an Entertainer

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
SCNR

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

h

dfg. dfg@c.c.

(74.162.177.12) [74.162.177.12]
On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> SCNR
>

Silicon CoNtrolled Rectifier?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

DOtheGUESS. that@place.not.

(85.81.79.177) 0x55514fb1.adsl.cybercity.dk
On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> SCNR
>

SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

adgf. adfg.

(74.162.177.12) [74.162.177.12]
It matters not. Follow Christ or burn in hellfire. Read the bible, all is revealed within.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

GK. malibannNOSPAM@t-online.de.

(79.216.203.65) [79.216.203.65]
On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:

> Read the bible, all is revealed within.

IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:
>
> > Read the bible, all is revealed within.
>
> IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...


Even though angels are legion, apparently, only 2 have names, and they're both male.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Dancing on a Pin. pin@heaven.com.

(193.200.150.125) [193.200.150.125]
On Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:
> >
> > > Read the bible, all is revealed within.
> >
> > IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...
>
>
> Even though angels are legion, apparently, only 2 have names, and they're
> both male.
>
Well apparently you can't count. There are at least twice as many angels mentioned in the bible, and only the Archangels (of which there are 7) are mentioned by name. So you know as little about angels as you do about computers, you aren't even a good atheist.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:
> > >
> > > > Read the bible, all is revealed within.
> > >
> > > IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...
> >
> >
> > Even though angels are legion, apparently, only 2 have names, and they're
> > both male.
> >
> Well apparently you can't count. There are at least twice as many angels
> mentioned in the bible, and only the Archangels (of which there are 7) are
> mentioned by name. So you know as little about angels as you do about
> computers, you aren't even a good atheist.


In the King James Version I saw Gabriel and Michael. What other dudes are there?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
While trying to find them, I saw that the bibull is QUITE monotonous.

Also, from how angels seem to be able to kill huge numbers of people, I envision them as maybe being unstoppable robots, like the terminator. Maybe aliens posed as though they were gods, and one robot _could_ kill upwards of 20,000 people, and even, who cares if it broke, they could send another identical looking one down to take it's place (meanwhile the grays pick up the wreckage so no one finds it) and it would continue the bloodbath.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Dancing on a Pin. pin@heaven.com.

(193.200.150.152) [193.200.150.152]
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Read the bible, all is revealed within.
> > > >
> > > > IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Even though angels are legion, apparently, only 2 have names, and they're
> > > both male.
> > >
> > Well apparently you can't count. There are at least twice as many angels
> > mentioned in the bible, and only the Archangels (of which there are 7) are
> > mentioned by name. So you know as little about angels as you do about
> > computers, you aren't even a good atheist.
>
>
> In the King James Version I saw Gabriel and Michael. What other dudes are
> there?
>
Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.

Don't forget Azrael, my favourite one.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

. .

(67.128.249.218) 67.128.249.218
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.

Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by other name), Gabriel, and Michael.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> > Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> > seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> > is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> > Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.
>
> Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The
> only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by
> other name), Gabriel, and Michael.

They come from pre-old testament Judaic scripture.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

. .

(67.128.249.218) 67.128.249.218
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> > > Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> > > seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> > > is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> > > Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.
> >
> > Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The
> > only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by
> > other name), Gabriel, and Michael.
>
> They come from pre-old testament Judaic scripture.

If you are referring to the deutero-canonical books of the Intertestamental period, then those were not even considered to be scripture by the Jewish teachers of their own day. If you are referring to books that supposedly predate the Pentateuch, but are not in our Bibles today, then Jews also have not considered them scripture for thousands of years, the history and veracity of those books being in extreme question, even by faithful Jews. They are not reliable.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Dancing on a Pin. pin@heaven.com.

(193.200.150.125) [193.200.150.125]
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> > Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> > seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> > is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> > Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.
>
> Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The
> only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by
> other name), Gabriel, and Michael.
>
"the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord" Tobit 12:15

The list of 7 is from Chapter 20 of Enoch I, and actually Uriel is named in Esdras.



Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> > > Lucifer (the Daystar) and Raphael come to mind. The usual list of the
> > > seven have Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (who appears in King James but
> > > is not named), with the remaining three names being slightly varied but
> > > Raguel, Zerachial and Remiel is one fairly good list from Epoch.
> >
> > Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The
> > only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by
> > other name), Gabriel, and Michael.
> >
> "the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord" Tobit
> 12:15
>
> The list of 7 is from Chapter 20 of Enoch I, and actually Uriel is named in
> Esdras.


Well, this page:
http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/booknames

Lists that Tobit and Esdras are part of the bibull (which version, I don't know), but Enoch isn't there.




King James Version has no Enoch book. Doesn't have Tobit or Esdras either.... Know what that means? (This is a question.)


On a side note, the angels are dropping off one by one. Hehe.

So, I did overlook that lucifer is an angel named in there. That makes 3. Now, is he one of the seven (that you claim) there are that are named? Is he an arch angel? That means there are EIGHT of them, just one has "lost his way"?

Arch angels have more hit points and martial arts ability than non-arch angels, I suppose? Can other angels EVER.... in _ETERNITY_, enhance their abilities to match those of arch angels??




This is the _first time_ I've actually seen all the names of the books of the bibull(shit).


From the tediousness of reading just nearly 100 paragraphs of the bibull, it's clearly a case of mesmerization that people are pulled in and kept locked in to religion.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

. .

(4.245.76.44) [4.245.76.44]
On Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, GK wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, adgf wrote:
> >
> > > Read the bible, all is revealed within.
> >
> > IMR there is no part in the Bible about the hellfire and Jesus ...
>
>
> Even though angels are legion, apparently, only 2 have names, and they're
> both male.

Both names (I'm assuming you mean Gabriel and Michael) come from ancient Hebrew. The ancient Hebrews used names to describe people. They would name their children, either by what they thought God wanted them to name the child, or by what they wanted that child to be. For example, many families would name their boys Joshua (translated to Greek as ιεσυς; transliterated to English as Jesus) because the Hebrew name Joshua literally means "Yahweh (i. e. the self-existent one) saves". They knew much of what the Hebrew scriptures teach, and they knew that they teach that God saves (or as they might have put it, "Yahweh saves"), and that God had told them through the Prophets that He was going to send the saviour. You put all that together with the assumption that they wanted their son to be that saviour, and they would name him what the real Saviour would be named, that is, Joshua (or in English, Jesus). Now, then, the names given to (or by, in Gabriel's case) the angel in question have nothing at all to do with what gender they are because angels are non-corporeal and therefore have no gender. Therefore the names are really descriptions of the angel in question (or in Michael's case, simply an exuberant exclamation). "Gabriel" means "Hero of God" or "God's Hero", and "Michael" means "Who is like God!?!" Neither of these descriptions has anything to do with gender.

As to your apparent implication of male bias in the Bible, have you never heard of the Hebrew midwives (who took their lives into their hands to defy Pharoah by hiding the male Hebrew children that Pharoah wanted murdered at birth, thus saving the life of Moses, who grew up to lead the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt) or of Rahab (the female hero who protected the Hebrew spies, then joined the Hebrews and became a part of Jesus' own genealogy), or Deborah (probably the finest of the ancient Judges of Israel, brave enough to lead the Israelites into battle even though she wasn't even a warrior), or that the ones who were the first to find the initial evidence of Jesus' resurrection from the dead (the empty tomb) were women? An ACCURATE reading of the Scriptures reveals a very different treatment of women than what you seem to imply. Many of them were treated like heroes. In the midst of an international society that treated women like chattel, beasts of burden and slaves the Scriptures treat them as equals, “for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28) In other words, all in Christ are equal. In Biblical times especially, this was a radical claim to make, to say that women are of the same worth and value as men.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, wrote:
> "there is neither male nor female,
> for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28) In other words,
> all in Christ are equal.

I guess that when in marriage they say the vow, "till death do you part" they mean that when you die, you are separated because you are no longer male and female, but the same? One doesn't have any need of the other anymore at that point (no more breeding going on)? They were a pain in the ass anyway, so good thing too, eh??

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> So, I did overlook that lucifer is an angel named in there. That makes 3.
> Now, is he one of the seven (that you claim) there are that are named? Is
> he an arch angel? That means there are EIGHT of them, just one has "lost
> his way"?


Let's delve deeper.


It seems that one angel, lucifer, has more names than all the others combined, assuming that only 2 others are named.

Also, I read one sentence in the bibull that said something to the effect of, an angel wanted to keep his name secret..... WHY THE HELL is THAT???? Is he one of the non-arch angels, and why NOT reveal his name? Is he shy?

The arch angels don't have last names,.... how many people in the bibull have last names? Why do we have last names?

Oh, there's Jesus Christ.... Mr. Christ?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > So, I did overlook that lucifer is an angel named in there. That makes 3.
> > Now, is he one of the seven (that you claim) there are that are named? Is
> > he an arch angel? That means there are EIGHT of them, just one has "lost
> > his way"?
>
>
> Let's delve deeper.
>
>
> It seems that one angel, lucifer, has more names than all the
> others combined, assuming that only 2 others are named.


Lucifer means nothing more than 'Lightbringer' this is nothing mare than another word for daystar or Venus. the king of babylon had also the title 'daystar' so if you read something like 'fall of lucifer' they just wanted to use it as an example how the king of babylon was defeated.

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

But there was also an other called Samael and cause of fasle translating and Propaganda the figures of Samael and Lucifer are miced together....

Some parts of the bible are propaganda, the gods of other people or tribes or the god formerly worshipped by the Israelites where turned into anti-gods so a local weather god responsible for the region around Jerusalem was turned into the main god ...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Dancing on a Pin. pin@heaven.com.

(193.200.150.137) [193.200.150.137]
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> Well, this page:
> http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/booknames
>
> Lists that Tobit and Esdras are part of the bibull (which version, I don't
> know), but Enoch isn't there.
>
>
>
> King James Version has no Enoch book. Doesn't have Tobit or Esdras
> either.... Know what that means? (This is a question.)
>
Actually it does, just not in the abridged version you are looking at. The King James version of the Bible was translated at the request of James I of the England in the early 1600s, with the first edition coming out in 1611 though in North America most bibles are based on 1769 Baskerville rewording, despite what the frontpiece usually claims. King James in fact forbid the removal of any of the 80 books of the bible, so any complete King James has the 80 books, which includes Tobit and both Esdras. In the 1880's, the protestant movement began removing some of the books of the bible, and so we get to the point now where they only have 66 books in the Anglican Bible translation they use as the "modern" protestant bible.

> On a side note, the angels are dropping off one by one. Hehe.
>
> So, I did overlook that lucifer is an angel named in there. That makes 3.
> Now, is he one of the seven (that you claim) there are that are named? Is
> he an arch angel? That means there are EIGHT of them, just one has "lost
> his way"?

No, there are actually more then the 4 I said, (Uriel in Esdras). Its been a long time since I studied this, but I believe that there are 7 before the Throne, Lucifer after the fall was replaced, so seven, lucifer falls, someone gets a promotion and we have 7 again.


> Arch angels have more hit points and martial arts ability than non-arch
> angels, I suppose? Can other angels EVER.... in _ETERNITY_, enhance their
> abilities to match those of arch angels??
>
Since you've decided to make this a D&D comparison, I'll explain it to you that way. God is Bahamut, he has 7 Archangels (Gold Dragons) who serve as his lieutenants, if one leaves his service, is destroyed, whatever, he is replaced by another.

>
> This is the _first time_ I've actually seen all the names of the books of
> the bibull(shit).
>
>
> From the tediousness of reading just nearly 100 paragraphs of the bibull,
> it's clearly a case of mesmerization that people are pulled in and kept
> locked in to religion.

Its clear you are actually too stupid to be an Atheist, and instead are a Amiga worshipper. You have memorized more about hit pts and armor classes then most Christians have memorized about the bible, what does that say about you, are you a locked into being a puppet of Hasbro?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> > > Could you provide Book and Chapter of where you're getting these names? The
> > > only ones I remember from Scripture are Lucifer (the fallen one, Satan by
> > > other name), Gabriel, and Michael.
> >
> > They come from pre-old testament Judaic scripture.
>
> If you are referring to the deutero-canonical books of the Intertestamental
> period, then those were not even considered to be scripture by the Jewish
> teachers of their own day. If you are referring to books that supposedly
> predate the Pentateuch, but are not in our Bibles today, then Jews also
> have not considered them scripture for thousands of years, the history and
> veracity of those books being in extreme question, even by faithful Jews.
> They are not reliable.

No scripture is reliable: it's all made up, by human beings, under the direction of themselves or other human beings. It's a fairy story gone too far. Get some science books instead and forget about angels and virgin births - internal combustion and the silicon chip are far more useful.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Dancing on a Pin. pin@heaven.com.

(193.200.150.82) mail82.anonymouse.org
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> Also, I read one sentence in the bibull that said something to the effect
> of, an angel wanted to keep his name secret..... WHY THE HELL is THAT????
> Is he one of the non-arch angels, and why NOT reveal his name? Is he shy?

I'm not sure of the reference, but the Angel is likely Uriel. He doesnt usually reveal his name because he is scary, ask the Egyptians.

> The arch angels don't have last names,.... how many people in the bibull
> have last names? Why do we have last names?

Last names are a fairly recent creation, their original source was the persons occupation, (Miller, Smith, Farmer, Carpenter, etc). That would make your true last name, something like slacker, lazy, hobo, amiganut, something like that.

> Oh, there's Jesus Christ.... Mr. Christ?
>
Christ isnt Jesus' last name, as I think even you probably know.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> The arch angels don't have last names,.... how many people
> in the bibull have last names?

A lot of cultures don't have family names, some use the place or tribe you came from: 'al Hassan' 'al Tikrit' Saddam Hussein's name was 'Hussein al Tikrit' before he has done some reforms that introduced family names like we have them too.

Jesus came from Nazareth in the bible they use to call him 'Jesus of/from Nazareth' this is a very common type of last name in the near east but when you take a closer look you will find this type of names also in modern western names for exsample Disney ( D'Isney )

An other very common type for last names is the name of the father (or mother), a very well known type is 'bin' it means 'son of' maybe you heared about 'Usama bin Laden' the hebrew form is often translated 'ben' you may know it as part of he name 'Benjamin' so Jesus name woul have been 'Jesus ben Joseph'

Today you can find remains in western names like Johnson (Son of John) or O'Brien or McDonald ... in Iceland they still doesn't use family names.

> Why do we have last names?

It is a modern idea to have something like a family name.

> Oh, there's Jesus Christ.... Mr. Christ?
>

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, GK wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> > The arch angels don't have last names,.... how many people
> > in the bibull have last names?
>
> A lot of cultures don't have family names, some use the place or tribe you
> came from: 'al Hassan' 'al Tikrit' Saddam Hussein's name was 'Hussein al
> Tikrit' before he has done some reforms that introduced family names like
> we have them too.

In India, women don't have family names until they are married and take the family name of the husband. Before that they're usually not allowed to use the family (tribal) name. When Indian women come to countries where a second name is required - such as those in Europe - they usually take the first name of their father as their second name. (Muslims countries probably have something even worse, seeing as they usually think women are subhuman and all.)

Even in Europe, a lot of the more eastern countries vary the family name depending on male or female, so brothers and sisters can have a name that is different (although it's just the last syllable that varies). Worse still, this practice isn't the same for every name or even every family.

Must suck to work in a passport office.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:
> On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> > Well, this page:
> > http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/booknames
> >
> > Lists that Tobit and Esdras are part of the bibull (which version, I don't
> > know), but Enoch isn't there.
> >
> >
> >
> > King James Version has no Enoch book. Doesn't have Tobit or Esdras
> > either.... Know what that means? (This is a question.)
> >
> Actually it does, just not in the abridged version you are looking at. The
> King James version of the Bible was translated at the request of James I of
> the England in the early 1600s, with the first edition coming out in 1611
> though in North America most bibles are based on 1769 Baskerville
> rewording, despite what the frontpiece usually claims. King James in fact
> forbid the removal of any of the 80 books of the bible, so any complete
> King James has the 80 books, which includes Tobit and both Esdras. In the
> 1880's, the protestant movement began removing some of the books of the
> bible, and so we get to the point now where they only have 66 books in the
> Anglican Bible translation they use as the "modern" protestant bible.

***********
Rev 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
***********

Merry old soul King James I is in hell?? And the Anglicans (Protestants) can't get to heaven???

Do you think that most people _do not_ have the 80 book bible?


In fact, it's _guaranteed_ that less than 50% of the entire world populace have the TRUE bible, and that means that _at least_ 75% of the people on this planet are hell bound. This is a SERIOUS MATTER. I wonder if there's anybody looking into it.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Dancing on a Pin wrote:

> Actually it does, just not in the abridged version you are looking at. The
> King James version of the Bible was translated at the request of James I of
> the England in the early 1600s, with the first edition coming out in 1611
> though in North America most bibles are based on 1769 Baskerville
> rewording, despite what the frontpiece usually claims. King James in fact
> forbid the removal of any of the 80 books of the bible, so any complete
> King James has the 80 books, which includes Tobit and both Esdras. In the
> 1880's, the protestant movement began removing some of the books of the
> bible, and so we get to the point now where they only have 66 books in the
> Anglican Bible translation they use as the "modern" protestant bible.

King James who was actually Scottish, arranged for the translation and work on this bible by notable people at the time during the Hampton Court Conference, and given the short time that they worked in, and the completely remarkable issues of distance and communications, and the issues therein, resulted in an amazing and astonishing astounding effort little understood in terms of its great labour and monumental construction.

It is without doubt a marvel and also one of the greatest works in the history of 'English' works ever created.

Translation into English was one of the great deconstructions of Church power in the English world, removing a stage where Church only translation and instruction for eons was rendered weaker as more were able to read and conclude from the book, removing power from Bishopricks that tended to translate both the language and terminology, with advantage to themselves. The Bible was called the 'authorised' version allowed to be read in church, and by using broad English vernacular, by design, it broadened the basis of the church, while weakening its absolutism.

The King lived in a time of Elizibethan scholarship, and was a great scholar, he persecuted Cathloics, especially after the gun power plot, and was an average King. He avoided most war during his reign, and the beginnings of the East India company and also the colonisation of the US began in his time.

The King James Bible has very great and far reaching effects and events in the English speaking people's history, far wider than can be covered here..

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
****
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
******

Good old Magratheans.


****
for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
******

What's wrong with oceans?


****
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
******

But lakes are fine? Well, not _that_ one.


****
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
******

Seems to have a hang up about water, hates it. So did the Wicked Witch of the West.


****
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
******

Phew! No, he's okay with water.... or,


****
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb
******

hmmm, hope it ain't pee.


****
Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
******

Seven named angels?


****
Rev 21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
******

Hey, it's a Borg cube!


****
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
******

So, is there a sun and moon? Not that the moon is very useful, usually not there even. As far as we know, the sun will decay too, and the moon is leaving the earth. He'll need to replace those sooner or later as well.


****
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
******

What nations does he talk about here, as the Jewish are the only ones to populate this place?


****
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.
******

Now, it's said that no living person can see the face of god and remain alive, so does that mean that this place is heaven? And, what's with the branding of the forehead, just like satan wants???


****
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
******

Sounds like downtown.


****
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
******

So, there are people in hell now..... Actually, it's argued that hell is merely your grave, and nothing is happening to you until god calls you back to be judged.

This brings into question ghosts. God surely can't be not powerful enough to stop people from lingering on earth to wander. Religionists therefore argue that, any ghost sightings are demons, evil angels in league with satan and not your relatives or friends.


What god wants of us is:

1. Don't kill.

It's impossible to kill in heaven.

2. Don't steal.

It's impossible to steal in heaven.

3. Don't lie.

It's impossible to lie in heaven.

4. Give what you have to others.

No one needs anything in heaven.


Seems to me that god is.....

A) Playing games with us
B) Wasting our time
C) Torturing us
D) Confused

One or more of the above.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
There's a rumor that the angels are fighting each other. I assume they are getting hurt, and some dying?

why can't an angel (assassin?) overcome all the obstacles that are blocking the way to get to lucifer and kill him?

I guess god doesn't want it to happen, as we can see he survives until the end of the book.

Therefore, angels are just puppets, robots for god to make demands of and they obey. No free will(y) allowed(y). They are tasked but can't be too successful, or they'd win the fight too early.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

jungle bunny's samsung rant. @sprint.

(174.132.58.186) [174.132.58.186]
you dont believe in god but you believe in angels and devils?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

. .

(68.94.89.180) [68.94.89.180]
On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, jungle bunny's samsung rant wrote:
> you dont believe in god but you believe in angels and devils?

Speaking from experience, one thing that atheists are unable to escape is logical inconsistency.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, wrote:
> On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, jungle bunny's samsung rant wrote:
> > you dont believe in god but you believe in angels and devils?
>
> Speaking from experience, one thing that atheists are unable to escape is
> logical inconsistency.

Speak for yourself.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, wrote:
> On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, jungle bunny's samsung rant wrote:
> > you dont believe in god but you believe in angels and devils?
>
> Speaking from experience, one thing that atheists are unable to escape is
> logical inconsistency.


When did I say I believe in those one things?

Angels and devils are made of the same cloth, it's just that devils are (lawful/neutral/chaotic) evil. Also their (in one case) "arch" classification is withdrawn. Lucifer was demoted.


I'm pouring scorn on the whole concept with my talking about it here.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
Just wondering, it says that lucifer and the Beast are dumped into the Lake of Fire. What about the rest of the evil angels?

Also, can angels that are evil repent and come back to the side of god?..... and _not one more_ angel after the initial group that sided with lucifer has crossed over to lucifer between then and the end of the bible?


Think any angel has flip flopped over and over again, like a person changing religions 5 or more times in their life?


Could angels be dead humans? Naahhh, that's just crazy talk. Dead humans stay dormant until the resurrection. Hey, it's like time travel, huh?



Anyone want more bibull passages made fun of?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: SCNR, Sorry, Could Not Resist.

. .

(67.159.44.51) [67.159.44.51]
On Saturday, Oct 31, 2009, Atheist2 wrote shit as usual.

Why don't you just fuck off ?

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 11:32:18 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (10:30:54)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (11:18:03)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]