BetterLookAgain - 06 November 2006 12:59 AM

The Bible clearly says the earth is a circle... in English… just like it has for centuries…

Of course, Isaiah was around in something like the 8th century BC, and the English language was a tad scarce at that time in history.  The older versions of Isaiah were written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, or other such languages.  And looking at my Greek and Hebrew versions of it (I really ought to see about replacing my former copy of one of the old Latin versions of it, perhaps the old 4th century AD Vulgate version; does anybody here have a Catholic Bible, in Latin, so that they can provide the Latin version of it?), they aren’t saying anything about the Earth being a circle.  Looking at the much, much later English versions of it (they first went into English thousands of years after the original version were made), even many of them don’t say “circle”.  All those versions are talking about a curved ceiling over the Earth, like a dome.

It is only in a very small and late minority of versions of Isaiah that it says, “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers” (to quote the King James version) or, “He sitteth enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers” (as the NIV says).  That’s because back when they were trying to decide how to translate from the Latin of St. Jerome and the Hebrew of the Masoretic texts and all those other languages, they chose to use the word “circle” to indicate the dome over the world, and the word choice was carried through in later versions.  And you’ll notice that even in those versions it’s saying the circle of the earth, and not the Earth is a circle.  That’s like the difference between saying “the candy bar of the man” and “the man is a candy bar”.

Incidentally, you do realise that circles are two-dimensional, don’t you?

even through the centuries men like you said “it’s flat”.

Not all that many people actually thought that the world was flat.  And certainly very few people of any learning.

Also, I’m Still Waiting for that Diagram of the Earth/Venus conjuncion.

The paltry, placebo, diagram you posted couldn’t fool your retarded sister.

He gave it to you.  It was quite clear.  It was also far more accurate than the one you provided, as it was based on the actual observed orbits rather than the rough approximation that you forced the orbits into to provide your pentagram.

So… for the rest of us who actually want to learn something…I have updated the website

I look forward to perusing your information. . .

This website that you list on your web page is hilarious, BetterLookAgain!  The blatant and incredible stretching of reality and the total randomness in it simply defies belief.  I particularly was taken with this part:

“Here we see the reversed and distorted pentagram on the ‘Great Seal’ of the USA on the back of the One Dollar Bill.

The five letters to which the five points of the star direct us to are (in clockwise order S,M,O,N and A. An obvious and intended anagram of M.A.S.O.N. As in the Illuminati controlled secret society network of Freemasonry.

Also demonstrable with a six pointed star, this is a well known hidden code on the dollar bill ‘Seal’ between researchers.”

I haven’t seen such flagrant and desperate attempts to force a perspective onto something since. . .well, I really can’t think of such a time right offhand.  “If we very carefully pick and choose from out of 29 different points around a circle the five that—when connected in a specially enforced order from among the hundreds of possible permutations—will form a rough pentagram, then draw lines to connect them in a certain specific order, they’ll form a rough pentagram!  Amazing!”

I see that you’re also still trying to say that the streets of Washington, D.C. form a pentagram.  Here’s the shape that the streets north of the White House really form:

Of course, that’s just a meaningless jumble, and that doesn’t fit in with your theory.  So you have to go in and carefully select certain parts of certain streets in order to force the pattern into the shape you want.  And even then, you end up with this:

That is still far from being a pentagram.

However, I thankfully know not to trust that Cremation of Care website, since they apparently come right out and admit that they’re evil and members of the Illuminati.  It was nice of them to tell us so.

If all these things are ‘more than just coincidence’, what are we to make of BetterLookAgain’s chosen screen name being an anagram of “Look, a beaten trig”?!

This can only refer to the bogus geometry BLA has been espousing! Has BLA secretly been trying to tell us that he knows the whole thing’s BS all along? The facts can’t lie!

I suggest we invesitgate BLA’s posts in more detail, to find the other hidden messages he must have included for us to find. And those web-sites too. What they actually say can only be a blind, to throw off the unenlightened. It is our duty to reveal the true message they contain!

Maybe we could start a web-page, so that our findings have more credibility!

BetterLookAgain - 06 November 2006 12:59 AM

The Bible clearly says the earth is a circle... in English… just like it has for centuries… even through the centuries men like you said “it’s flat”.
And Yes, you are supposed to “Take it Literally” Duh ...

Now our ‘mole’ on the inside, can’t really mean take it literally, folks. And we’ve already proved that he’s sending hidden messages to us. So what does BLA mean by this?! *Plink!* (<-- Sound of a lightbulb going on.) TAKE IT LITERALLY = TRITELY TALK A LIE! So Agent BLA has risked life and limb to let us know the devastating truth, bible literalists are talking trite lies. Watch your children folks, 'they' have people everywhere!

BetterLookAgain - 06 November 2006 12:59 AM

Of peticular interest - be sure to download the mini e-book ‘The Truth of the History of the World’

*Gasp!* “HISTORY OF THE WORLD” is an anagram of “SHIFTY ED OR HOWL ROT”! Clearly, BLA is warning us that the contents of the e-book are badly edited rants and crud designed to melt our brains and soften us up for conquest! *Phew!* Thanks, BLA! They almost had us there!

Hi, I have a question over something I do not understand for Mr. B. L. Again:

Uhh, I hate it when I am forced to reveal how dumb I am, but what do you mean with the statement regarding the Earth being a circle?  Does that mean round, like a ball?  Or literally, like a circle on a piece of paper?

Uhh, David B. is anything but a crack-head.  He is having a bit of harmless fun with the anagrams, but only to show you they are everywhere, easily found or contrived, like the way numerologists manipulate numbers to ‘prove’ their ideas.

A good example of manipulated info:

C       Churchill

H       Hitler

R       Roosevelt

I       Il Duce

S     Stalin

T     Truman

Stoned-out hippies might find some sort of major meaning there, what with the initials of the major players of WW II (in Europe) spellng out ‘Christ’.  Isn’t that heavy?

How come the Church maintained for so long that the Earth was the center of the Universe?  And persecuted those who even suggested otherwise?

Can you see any similariity now to what can happen if the Bible is taken literally?

Does ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ mean that soldiers in the field of battle are murderers?

Dan, in a curious mood tonight, I guess

BetterLookAgain - 07 November 2006 03:36 AM

Ok… Here’s your answer: a circle is a circle, which is a ball viewed from the side. (get it? hello?)(any five year old would)

When the Bible said the ‘circle of the earth’, it meant ball, don’t you think?

A circle is a circle, a two-dimensional object.  A sphere is a sphere, a solid object.  They are two different things.  If you’re going to go by a two-dimensional cross-section of a solid object, then a circle could also be a cylinder, or an oval solid, or an elliptical solid, or a tube, or a doughnut, or a cup-shape, or a cone, or an amoeba-shape, or any of many other various shapes.

Luckily we don’t have to worry about all that sort of thing, though, since in all but a few English translations Isaiah is actually describing a dome-shaped ceiling over the world.  So you don’t need to go around claiming that an apple is a lemon in order to make sense of it.

And by the way, if you’re having to resort to insulting Dan, who’s doing nothing worse than earnestly asking a question, then you’re reaching a level of childishness that further damages any credibility you may have had here.

BetterLookAgain - 07 November 2006 04:17 AM

Yea right!!!

It is Your credibility that sucks around here!

When comparing you and me, I rather doubt that, really.  At least I actually bother to provide information, and take the trouble to try to answer the opposing view’s questions and refute their arguments.

I have been reading your other post in the other forums.

I admire your dedication.

It sure looks like like you are paid to be here.

Nope.

You are aren’t you?

Nope.

You even pointed to that fact in one of your previous posts when you said “you are here to balance the forum” or something to that effect. I am searching for that post now - hopefully it wasn’t “pulled”.

Heh, I’m quite interested now to see where you think I said I’m paid to be here.  So would Alex, I think.  Or then again, maybe he wouldn’t be, since I suppose he’d be the one paying the cheques.

Why else would you be here day and night posting contrarian views of anything said, like the dutiful drone that you are?

I only post contrary views to comments that I either disagree with, or that I see have errors in them.  Which tends to cover most of yours so far.

Same goes for your other alias David, Dan, etc.. etc…

I’m sure that they’ll be most fascinated to hear that.

Piss Off.

The funny thing about public forums is that they’re public.  As long as you’re well behaved, at least.  The way you’ve been throwing insults around at anybody and everybody, though, you’re not going to be around here long before someone in charge gets tired of the childishness.

And yet again, notice how BetterLookAgain completely ignores the evidence presented against his case.  He doesn’t even try to say that it’s wrong, or to refute it.  Instead he has to resort to personal attacks, to inventing backgrounds about the other people here online, and to trying to simply chase away anybody who disagrees with him.  If he keeps on like that, I might almost start to think that he doesn’t have any refutations, and so is trying to sidetrack things!

The more things don’t go his way and the more he can’t seem to convince anyone here of his point of view the angrier he gets, huh?

Wow.  I’ve seen some meltdowns on internet forums before, but this one really has some potential.  It’s nowhere near a high point yet, but it’s getting there.

Tah - 07 November 2006 04:39 AM

The more things don’t go his way and the more he can’t seem to convince anyone here of his point of view the angrier he gets, huh?

Wow.  I’ve seen some meltdowns on internet forums before, but this one really has some potential.  It’s nowhere near a high point yet, but it’s getting there.

Well, hope that he doesn’t get banned too soon, then, Tah, so that you can have your entertainment.  Or hope that he learns to be civil.

By the way, I just noticed something rather interesting here:

BetterLookAgain - 06 November 2006 12:59 AM

And Yes, you are supposed to “Take [the Bible] Literally” Duh ...

Dan Jr. - 07 November 2006 03:20 AM

. . .what do you mean with the statement regarding the Earth being a circle?  Does that mean round, like a ball?  Or literally, like a circle on a piece of paper?

BetterLookAgain - 07 November 2006 03:36 AM

...a circle is a circle, which is a ball viewed from the side.  When the Bible said the ‘circle of the earth’, it meant ball, don’t you think?

So, are we to take the Bible literally or not?  You seem to be urging us to do both.

BetterLookAgain - 07 November 2006 06:23 AM

Assipper,

The more you spew your BS

The more stupid you look, and probably become.

And yet again, you completely avoid all the questions and points made against you, and resort to spite and venom and increasingly childish behaviour.

 

So far, BetterLookAgain, you really haven’t answered most of the points raised against your claims.  Most of them still stand.  On the other hand, we’ve answered all of your points.  When one side provides answers to all the questions and counters all the other side’s claims, and the opposing side does neither, that’s not a good thing for the side that’s not doing anything productive.  So try to address at least a few of the following.  And remember, simply saying “it’s not true because I say so!” just doesn’t cut it.  You have to explain your reasoning.

1.  You said that there’s no way to verify tests for dating things.
I pointed out some.
You reply vaguely that you don’t “believe” the numbers.  You don’t do anything to show how those methods of verification are false.

So, are you going to tell us how all the checks and verifications for archaeological and paleontological dating are completely made up?

2.  You said that you can’t know how old something was unless you were there when it was made, and therefor the dates given are wrong.
I asked you how you could know that they’re wrong, since you weren’t there for them either.
You simply avoid that question.

Are you going to tell us either how you can know exactly how old those things are, or else why the standards that you apply to others don’t have to apply to you?

3.You say that I and others claim to know everything.
We point out that we’ve actually said the opposite.
You completely ignore what we actually wrote, and continue using your own invented quotations.

Are you going to stop making up out of thin air arguments against you to argue against?

4.You claim that Isaiah wrote the word “circle” to describe the Earth.
I point out that the English word “circle” didn’t exist when Isaiah was around, and that the word that he did use isn’t even one that means a circle, but rather a dome.  I also point out that, even if you do take Isaiah to literally mean a circle, it still doesn’t say that the Earth is a circle.
You reply with insults and accusations of imaginary conspiracies.

Are you going to tell us how a tiny minority of translations from within the last 500 years manage to cancel out the 2,300 years of previous versions?  Or how a phrase that is to be taken literally (at your own insistence) and that doesn’t appear to say a certain thing does indeed, without having to be interpreted (remember, it has to be literal), say what you claim it does?

5.You say that scientists are all somehow plotting to lie and to undermine the church.
It is pointed out that many of the big scientific discoveries were actually made by members of the church, and that thousands of churchgoers don’t see any innate conflict between science and religion.
You reply with vague insults.

Are you going to tell us why so many of the people who you claim support your position don’t actually do so?

6.You ask David for a diagram.
He provides it.
You simply dismiss it without any word as to why it is wrong, and then demand that he show it to you again.

Are you going to tell us why your diagrams that are based on a very loose estimate are more correct than David’s diagrams that are based on more precise measurements?

7.I ask you about how you can justify calling a certain shape a pentagram.
You reply with insults and accusations of imaginary conspiracies.

Are you going to tell us how a shape that you try to force into a pentagram and ends up being only a quadragram is really a pentagram?

8.Dan asks you whether something is a flat object or a spherical object.
You tell him that the flat object is really a spherical object.
I point out that that’s a contradiction.
You reply with insults and more vague and wild accusations.

Are you going to let us know just how a two-dimensional object is really a solid object?

9.You tell us to take the Bible literally.
Dan asks you if we should take the Bible literally.
You tell him not to take the literal meaning.

So which are we supposed to do?  Take it literally, or not?  Or are we supposed to just pick and choose, as it suits us?

Give it UP !!!

I will, if you can satisfactorily answer those questions.

Do you always have to have the last word???

Umm. . .yes?