Monday, February 22, 2016

... on Hebrew Gematria for Harry - retort given and withdrawn


1) New blog on the kid : King James and Mary Tudor, the cat, the dog, the cog, 2) Some of the Main Suspects, 3) So, am I a suspect, before I go on citing others?, 4) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hebrew Gematria for Harry - retort given and withdrawn

Why Prince Harry does not want you to see this Video
PrinceHarry 666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMNPriSh_lw


10:10 May I exonerate Prince Harry somewhat? My ma studied Hebrew. Harry may or may not transliterate with one resh, I think it is one even when geminated, but you add some dots above or below. But the resh comes after beth, since it is not hAAri, but hAri, and the short A is not initial, so it doesn't have a Knacklaut onset either. Unless you refer to some non-standard way of spelling Hebrew. Have you looked the names and titles up in Hebrew form?

14:18 Google translate is NOT infallible either for translation or for transcription. Have you looked transcriptions from Google translate up in other sources, like Hebrew wikipedia? Or better still, material from British Embassy in "Israel"?

[update next day: Harry seems correctly transliterated after all, don't know why, but here is Harry Truman in Hebrew: הארי טרומן]

Saturday, February 20, 2016

... against an Afrocentric Neopagan by the name of Tim Aldred

Video commented on
Bamboozled ( the bible is worst book ever written)
Ras Fyah Blaze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-_e_WQsJc


II comment with thread
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:38 "the African people never had a religion called the Christian religion"?

O K .... what exactly do you call Ethiopian Christianity?

Btw, Ethiopians were Christians while Swedes were still Pagans, worshipping Nerthus and later Odin and company.

Tim Aldred
(modifié)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Greetings to you my king. If you follow my argument in the video. You'll discover that I focus on points that are specifically relevant to human existence under the BC Big Era... opposed to the A.D. anno Domini ecclesiastical era. In my research only what world history recorded, is literal human truth. Truth of BC era, has jurisdiction under the Goddesses and Gods who hybrid and nurtured modern intelligent man, for at least 200,000 paleolithic age years-- with one primordial human religion. A.D. era with the words God, Devil and Jesus Christ, not anything literal, but fiction. Therefore sir, they cannot be argued on the basis of belief in them, white facing the reality of historic anthropic or parochial reality. If you are understanding my track of logic in this. In that sense my brother, the conclusion is this; Christianity is null and void, a matter that it only has fictional lies has premise for its grounds. Christianity in its origin has no civilized coherent or intelligent grounds for realistic argument...it's fiction. If Ethiopian Christianity exist in anyway, it was oriented from someone's unnatural contrivance, (not literal civility), to feed foolish people who have psychologically fallen asleep.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ethiopia is African before people migrated to the exterior. The origin of a small taxonomic group of people, started out under The Goddesses and Gods, this is where Pagan Polytheism derived. Christianity went into Ethiopia in the 1st century. Christianity started with the bible story in Matthew 2 with wise men following a star. And in book of Acts a Phillip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. No world history record Christianity in Ethiopia prior to the A.D. era. If you can prove otherwise just write it down here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Tim Aldred "You'll discover that I focus on points that are specifically relevant to human existence under the BC Big Era... opposed to the A.D. anno Domini ecclesiastical era."

That makes your point a bit pointless. EVERY people, except Hebrews were Pagan before Christ. Or was that precisely what you meant?

"In my research only what world history recorded, is literal human truth."

What exactly does a phrase like "world history" mean here? History is traditionally not written by a group of historians operating by research detached from loyalties, it is written by people within communities, usually religious ones. Both Abrahamic ones, on the Hebrew and Christian side and Pagan ones. VERY few if any Historians previous to Gibbons were atheists. So, does your "world history" simply mean Pagan Historiographers as opposed to Abrahamic ones?

"Truth of BC era, has jurisdiction under the Goddesses and Gods who hybrid and nurtured modern intelligent man, for at least 200,000 paleolithic age years-- with one primordial human religion."

You are welcome to TRY to prove :

  • that number of years
  • that palaeolithic was all Pagan.


Both are very tenuous and actually Marxist or Dia-Mat (or related Atheist) positions within the apostasy part of Christian civilisation. If you are Pagan, why do you settle for that?

" A.D. era with the words God, Devil and Jesus Christ, not anything literal, but fiction."

Whether forgery or truth, they are certainly meant as literal, not as metaphors or novel writing. If you can't see that, your research is very flawed.

BBL, someone's waiting for a computer.

Tim Aldred
(modifié)
+Hans-Georg Lundahl: I'm telling the world that those characters in the Christian bible are contrivance by white invading criminal white men. Are you basing your argument of biblical fraud. What of my research is flawed?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: I have just put down any Ethiopian Christianity. What is your stipulation for, in reference to whether God etc., is forgery. I'm not accepting none of the biblical farce. What are you asserting into what I have stated to you--just make the connection so I know what your thought is; my king! 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Therefore sir, they cannot be argued on the basis of belief in them, white facing the reality of historic anthropic or parochial reality. If you are understanding my track of logic in this."

Your track of logic is flawed by the false premiss of "nothing literal". Since it is meant literally, belief must be explained as ultimately:

  • based on reality
  • based on mistake (how? not all kinds of mistakes are applicable to all kinds of things!)
  • or based on lie (how, again? not all kinds of truthfulness or lack thereof are compatible with all kinds of character!)


"In that sense my brother, the conclusion is this; Christianity is null and void, a matter that it only has fictional lies has premise for its grounds."

Your categories are flawed, unless by "fiction" you rhetorically mean "lies". If by "fairy tales" you mean things like "evolution is a fairy tale" or "Christianity is a fairy tale", OK, but not if by "fairy tales" or "novels" or any other genre of fiction you mean things like Little Red Riding Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings.

This is not how these things are received. X writing a novel and Y, Z, W all mistaking the novel for documentary is a very extraordinary claim, to my best knowledge never seriously claimed for anything, at least not of having certainty of it, and it requires very extraordinary evidence. You have not got that.

[I meant "anything except the Bible", that is ... i e anything outside this debate.]

"Christianity in its origin has no civilized coherent or intelligent grounds for realistic argument...it's fiction."

Sounds like you did no detailed research at all. Sounds like you ONLY want to debunk Christianity. And therefore you are not even close to starting with someone who knows the details.

"If Ethiopian Christianity exist in anyway, it was oriented from someone's unnatural contrivance, (not literal civility), to feed foolish people who have psychologically fallen asleep."

I think I respect black Africans and their mental coherence more than you do, even if I am white and you are black.

"Ethiopia is African before people migrated to the exterior."

To the very best of my knowledge it remains very African.

"The origin of a small taxonomic group of people, started out under The Goddesses and Gods, this is where Pagan Polytheism derived."

Possible. So?

"Christianity went into Ethiopia in the 1st century. Christianity started with the bible story in Matthew 2 with wise men following a star. And in book of Acts a Phillip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch. No world history record Christianity in Ethiopia prior to the A.D. era. If you can prove otherwise just write it down here."

I don't intend to. My point is not Christianity being older than itself in Ethiopia, my point is Ethiopia accepted it from the start.

"My brother, I am asking you to leave off religion alone"

You are preaching, and you are preaching badly.

"read the truth that is written in the world history text"

WHAT "world history text"? A modern textbook about it? It is true in most of what it says, omits much which is at least as certain, and is often false at edges. I say this as a Christian, but also as a history buff. Even if I were an Atheist, I could not respect as a historian a man who referred to anything as "the world history text", since there is no unique such text. And some of the texts which make the claim are Christian, like Bossuet's world history for a French Prince.

"about promordial human origins"

Primordial human origins is precisely one theme where texts about world history differ from each other. Leakey and Moses are not giving same account of first men, for instance.

"because the bible was designed to keep people mes-identigying things is the real sense."

This is a very interesting accusation, but you are not being specific about how you know that of who would have done that. It is also very much Marxist ideology.

"Our origins is recorded in history, so the story about Adam and Eve is fiction not the fact."

"is recorded in history" - which one?

  • Genesis
  • Egyptian
  • Theogony (which claims to be a revelation to Hesiod and so is not history)
  • Sumerian King List (which doesn't specify anything about first men, only about first kings)?


That is what "recorded history" - false or real - means. But Leakey is not giving "recorded history", but reconstruction supposedly a million years after the events.

[Here in the following I am probably answering points which were deleted in his modified version of what I answered, OR was posting an answer to wrong thread, see the other comment (namely I one, quoted below!) I made under video:]

"No spirit God create anything. We are literal"

You are not even grammatically coherent. You argue as if "literal" and "spiritual" were opposite, generally speaking (letter and spirit of law are, when it comes to Moses' law).

"to be spiritual is ti become a fool"

No. To be able to think at all presupposes you are not just matter but also spirit.

"that is what the bible tell people to do."

In some very specific contexts, yes, Bible tells people to become fools. For instance, to become fools to people like you. First Corinthians 1 and 2 tell us that people like you will consider us fools. People who look to their stomach or people who look too much on what other people think.

"you are to become unnatural for the bible to make sense."

Not UN-natural, but SUPER-natural.

"I'm telling the world those characters in the Christian bible are contrivance by white invading criminal white men."

You are taking "whites" as a homogenous group. Also, you are wrong to say all whites who invaded African countries are criminals, French invasions of Algeria and of Ashanti kingdoms were good deeds. But even if not, THOSE white men came millennia after them who wrote the Bible. It's like blaming Kunta Kinte for the evils of Barrack Hussein Obama.

"Are you basing your argument of biblical fraud. What of my research is flawed?"

For instance lack of being specific about details and for instance taking "whites" as one single group and blaming ancestors for what remote descendants perhaps did or perhaps did not commit crimes in doing.

"I have just put down any Ethiopian Christianity."

You have not.

"What is your stipulation for, in reference to whether God etc., is forgery."

My stipulation for a religion being forgery is for instance its making no certified miracles. Mohammed got a revelation, it made great claims, but he never raised one dead or healed one sick.

"I'm not accepting none of the biblical farce."

Your loss. But don't ask the rest of us to lose both or reason in this world and our souls in the next to agree with you.

"What are you asserting into what I have stated to you--just make the connection so I know what your thought is; my king!"

What do you mean by inserting "my king" in your discourse? I am, to the best of my knowledge, king of noone and nowhere, and I am not claiming to be king either. Is it a polite African phrase to strangers, is it what you call every mean according to your philosophy, or what is it?

Tim Aldred
+Hans-Georg Lundahl : I don't smoke or drink to get drunk, sober all of the time. I don't say something and then turn around and contradict what I have said. Here you have affirmed my position many times, yet later you say that I am flawed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have not affirmed it. I have cited your many words, then refuted each. What I put within "quotation marks" is generally your words. After it, I generally give my answer to those particular words before going on to next point. One does not need to have the flaws of drunkenness or drug abuse or even madness to be simply a bit too ignorant to have made a successful research. So, do another research, keep the points in mind I gave you, better luck with your research NEXT time.

[I cited words I was answering so that he should know what I was answering. When putting everything I cited within " and here too italicised - mostly I succeeded on youtube too, when not there were _ around citations as well as " and all my answers without it, I think he should be able to see what I am answering. Since he did nothing similar, but only answered, as if to something I had just said, I do not always grasp what exactly he was answering.]

Tim Aldred
+Hans-Georg Lundahl : You are talking very incoherent, why? Primordial history of the black-headed people, shows to be the product/ handiwork of Anunnaki who had left their homeland to takeover earth. We are first Primitive Worker said the Sumerian/Babylonian record. Unless you are prepared to prove by a different source that the Israelite originate otherwise, you have not shown what I wrote pointless in no king of manner. Why? All intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the creation of Anunnaki/ Goddesses and Gods... this is the only source of primordial pagan religion. Please speak sincere, this is not idleness for silly Hebrew game!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: None of you above.

[Here I had been very grateful if he had quoted what he was answering. I now see he was referring to my alternative about Genesis, Egyptian, Sumerian Kinglist. From my answer, you will see, I omit answering this, because I was not sure what he was referring to.]

You are not within the same human existence, and chronological construct, shown in the general civilized "World History."

[He still does not see there is no such an entity. Modern textbooks, etc, as I said above and they start with things that are not recorded but reconstructed. Everything about Palaeolithic, except when some modern savages are classified as such, is reconstructed: except if we accept parts of Biblical or Sumerian or etc. records really involved the kind of existence we call Palaeolithic.]

I stick to the general pattern of world history, which group people as a whole. I don't go into into the unlearned confusion where many spend time staking out who they supposed themselves to be. So I maintain the greatest clarity, using appropriate terms, like "world history" BC Big era v. AD anno Domini. Look these are master terms; to define all issues throughout historic times. So you can have your argument about AD classification of your branding of prodigal religions, and group such as whether it be Hebrew or one from the three sons of Noah. In my level of concern about humanity, it doesn't really matter tribe you are from. Earth is belonging to all creatures. Three major powers affect human and lower animal. You question or proposition, concerning Abraham and status of one being atheist is futile, when you face universal high meaningful existence, of intelligent distinction, concerning peoples of B.C. Big era paleolithic time v. A.D. Anno Domini...is moot, null and void!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Very interesting my king, why do you not know, to cal a man king is complementary? Look, my thinking is that based on your level of reasoning, we can do better on air. Because in that way I can address broadly those points you have made that stipulate. I am inviting you to my show Mon Wed and Sun 4:00 PM EST (661) 467-2407 t'would be wonderful!

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: Aha! You are to respect words much more, and advance your certainty of human existence, before giving yourself an elevation beyond your actual status. Here you apply some of the most illogical, and anti-African world history concepts, using words like [atheist]. You don't even know that is not a civilized word, as long as you are from the mold of known intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens origins. Then you are an Hebrew of Abraham. Those kinds of thinking are not subjects under B.C. Paleolithic era historic account. If you want to past the test for to be my coach, come on and let us do some shows together, even a go one my king. M. W. and SUN 4: 00 PM EST (661)467-2407

+Hans-Georg Lundahl: The problem here between you and I is you are under the Romans A.D. Anno Domini, and I an under the B.C. Big era. We don't speak the same notions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You are talking very incoherent, why?"

Incoherence is on YOUR side, not mine.

"Primordial history of the black-headed people, shows to be the product/ handiwork of Anunnaki who had left their homeland to takeover earth. We are first Primitive Worker said the Sumerian/Babylonian record."

That is an interesting theory. However, that is not even the record of the Sumerians, it is the reinterpretation of it by people like Zechariah Sitchen. I believe the Hebrew record is more credible than the Sumerian one. And I believe the reconstruction by Sitchen is less credible than the original versions of Sumerian one.

"All intelligent Homo Sapiens Sapiens are the creation of Anunnaki/ Goddesses and Gods... this is the only source of primordial pagan religion."

That all men are handiwork of some god, all except Atheists agree about. I believe in the God Who also had made the beasts and the plants and the Earth and the Heavens well before making men. I also consider that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Heidelbergensis are descending from Adam. Probably all Homo Erectus, except forgeries (I heard sth about Peking man or Java man being a forgery).

"Please speak sincere, this is not idleness for silly Hebrew game!"

Hebrews are more serious in their silliness than you in all your seriousness.

"I don't go into into the unlearned confusion where many spend time staking out who they supposed themselves to be. So I maintain the greatest clarity, using appropriate terms, like "world history" BC Big era v. AD anno Domini."

You are forgetting, that even if you deny the validity of classifying certain years as AD, these years still occurred. African Ethiopians have under these years still embraced Christianity, so saying Africans NEVER were Christians is simply wrong. I agree Anno Mundi is a bigger era than Anno Domini. We are 2015 AD. When Christ was born it was 5199 AM. 2957 after the Flood.

But what exactly Africans believed in during the first 2957 years after the Flood, is not a matter of historic record. It is a matter of speculation, for most of the time. Adding tens or hundreds of thousands of years is also not recorded history (unless you go by the exaggerated Sumerian Kinglist and consider that a faithful record, I consider it a forgery as to its earliest contents, or at best a misunderstanding), but reconstruction.

"You question or proposition, concerning Abraham and status of one being atheist is futile, when you face universal high meaningful existence, of intelligent distinction, concerning peoples of B.C. Big era paleolithic time v. A.D. Anno Domini...is moot, null and void!"

When we look at UNIVERSALS of human religion, in human religionS, they best correspond to Abrahamic religions and very much better than anything else correspond to Catholic Faith.

"Very interesting my king, why do you not know, to cal a man king is complementary?"

In Europe this is not used as a compliment. I guessed and hoped it was a polite phrase, thanks for agreeing!

In Europe, we have had so many troubles about usurpers, that we reserve the term "king" for legitimate monarchs, we do not use the word as a simple compliment. That is why I was a bit worried.

"Look, my thinking is that based on your level of reasoning, we can do better on air."

I think not, I am afraid you might interrupt me. Also, I do not have a phone that is functioning, so I could hardly answer yes, even if I trusted your radio manners.

"Aha! You are to respect words much more, and advance your certainty of human existence, before giving yourself an elevation beyond your actual status. Here you apply some of the most illogical, and anti-African world history concepts, using words like [atheist]."

[Ah, here he is IS admitting that world history concepts do come in diverging versions, since he is complaining about an "anti-African" set of them!]

Unfortunately, there is such a sect as Atheists. If no sincere such live in Africa, there are some in Europe. Since you did not quote what you answered, I do not know what you were referring to (unless I go back to what I wrote yesterday), but I very much did not say anything specifically anti-African, that is for sure. I am European, and I am pro-European.

I am not anti-African, except for Africans having too much collectivism - as I told another African, who blamed colonialism and supposed genocides of it (last African genocide was committed by Africans, in Rwanda), and exceptionally real ones on "white Europeans" in general, that is as collectivist as if I were to blame the crimes of Barrack Obama on Kunta Kinte.

Colonialism in Africa is very recent compared to what makes up the back bone of European and Christian intellect. BUT since it was on another thread, with another African, I was not saying that anti-African thing to you.

[I was wrong, see above.]

"The problem here between you and I is you are under the Romans A.D. Anno Domini, and I an under the B.C. Big era. We don't speak the same notions."

BC means "before Christ". Big Era does not mean BC, it means Anno Mundi. We disagree vastly about how big anno mundi is really. BUT even you cannot claim to be chronologically before an event that happened 2000 years ago.

"Then you are an Hebrew of Abraham."

I take THAT as a real compliment.

I comment with shorter thread
A previous comment to video:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
0:23 OK, world leaders using religion to "control the populace"? Is that a sin or not? If it is, some men at least, world leaders, are sinners. And if they are sinners, either we are too, or we should ask how they got so much power over us. And no, religion is not the answer.

Tim Aldred
+Hans-Georg Lundahl: My brother, I am asking you to leave off religion alone, read the truth that is written in the world history text, about promordial human origins... because the bible was designed to keep people mes-identigying things is the real sense. Our origins is recorded in history, so the story about Adam and Eve is fiction not the fact. No spirit God create anything. We are literal, to be spiritual is ti become a fool that is what the bible tell people to do. 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 tells that God loves fools and you are to become unnatural for the bible to make sense. Till then Peace. Hey, if you desire, please listen into my show (661)467--2407. on Sun Mon and Wed 4:00 PM EST

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(modifié)
+Tim Aldred I think I had answered you about Corinthians, and it got deleted. Not so, you are repeating here what you said in other thread. Sorry. Sorry also for missing that your Europhobia had already been adressed with the comparison with blaming Kunta Kinte for the crimes of Obama. But you babbled on, and I saw no reaction on that comparison, no "sorry", so I assumed I had said so to someone else.