The Chronicle Project? - Retranslating the old testament?

[Zap_98]

I stumbled upon this at CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844

Basically, it involves a retranslation of the old testament of the bible following some "Self Defining Hebrew" system. I'd say more about it but I know very little on the subject myself and after finding nothing on it while doing a forum search (to my surprise), I'm curious to see what people here might think of it.

Frankly, I'm skeptical given the lack of credentials given for the 'researchers' however, credentials aren't always important on Armageddon Online are they?

The Chronicle Project's web page is here: http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

Sorry if this has been posted before, I've never seen anything on it here in all my time lurking and it seems like something that would be fitting for this forum.

[The Word]

I stumbled upon this at CNN: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-611844

Basically, it involves a retranslation of the old testament of the bible following some "Self Defining Hebrew" system. I'd say more about it but I know very little on the subject myself and after finding nothing on it while doing a forum search (to my surprise), I'm curious to see what people here might think of it.

Frankly, I'm skeptical given the lack of credentials given for the 'researchers' however, credentials aren't always important on Armageddon Online are they?

The Chronicle Project's web page is here: http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

Sorry if this has been posted before, I've never seen anything on it here in all my time lurking and it seems like something that would be fitting for this forum.

No scriptures will give you the truth so don't worry about it.

[tahn1000]

spoken like a true ignorant.

[The Word]

spoken like a true ignorant.

Not ONE word in the scriptures is the truth. The truth is God, not a book with words in it. The scriptures can't even lead sinners to the truth because it takes the spoken word heard in our heart, mind and soul to lead us to him. The gospel was the way to the truth for the saints but God spoke directly to me to make me like he did with the prophets.

The only reason the scriptures were needed was for God to interpret the prophecies so his saint could speak the word to make them happen. Not one Christian has ever received the truth of God because they weren't chosen to be a saint.

Ephesians 1:
3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
5: He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6: to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Romans 9:
28: We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose[/color.
29: For [color=yellow]those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
30: And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

II Thesalonians 2:
13: But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
14: To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


I Corinthians 1:
25: For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26: For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth;
27: but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,
28: God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29: so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

James 2:
5: Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?

Mark 13:
20: And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
22: False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

John 15: 16
16: You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

[Lillith]

Frankly, I'm skeptical given the lack of credentials given for the 'researchers' however, credentials aren't always important on Armageddon Online are they?



You are correct.

Credentials are not important. All one needs to be an authority now days is a Bible, a dictionary and IP to qualify as an authorative "researcher", a prophet or saint, etc.

[MHz]

http://www.thechronicleproject.org/

The page loads for me but the navigation buttons are dead.

Is this an expansion of the 'Bible code'?

[tahn1000]

perhaps your preconceived notions are jamming your browser. the site loads fine for me.

[MHz]

Actually it worked after I clicked on a word, I was expecting to see that 'hand thing'.

[FinalFour]

You are correct.

Credentials are not important. All one needs to be an authority now days is a Bible, a dictionary and IP to qualify as an authorative "researcher", a prophet or saint, etc.

Ha! True enough. --But it takes even fewer resources and credentials to be a debunker. Set aside the common understanding and you are a skeptic. Set aside common courtesy and common sense and you can be a cynic.

Cynicism lives at a lazy man's house, where no reasoning is required. Ridicule is the weapon he wields and the tool he becomes.

I have to admit-- I did giggle when I visited the Bio section of the Project Team. In terms of qualifications, large breasts might have been among either the need to have, or nice to have criteria. lol

[Lillith]

Ha! True enough. --But it takes even fewer resources and credentials to be a debunker. Set aside the common understanding and you are a skeptic. Set aside common courtesy and common sense and you can be a cynic.



According to the definition of a debunker, one absolutely requires common sense, an average intelligence, some logic and a good semblence of wisdom.

de·bunk
   /dɪˈbʌŋk/ [dih-buhngk] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

One did not even have to be a "believer" to be a debunker regarding Harold Camping. I would also venture to also say that many of his followers now consider themselves former believers, if not down right cynics and skeptics.

Contrary to the "believers" I required no widely used/acceptable and acredited references or "resources" upon which the prophecies were generated to condsider my self a debunker, cynic or skeptic. If that made me a "ridiculer", then so be it.

[FinalFour]

You prove my point Lillith. You should have noted that I distinguished between debunker and skeptic, contrasting ridiculer and cynic.

It's the easiest thing in the world to be a critic of much, while offering very little.

[MHz]

v1. To chronicle to begin to
produce, the supreme ones,
with the celestials and with the
planet Earth.
v2. And the Planet Earth had
existed for a long time,
without attention and amid
being to note.
And darkness upon, to face the
salt water ocean. And to draw
in (from an outside source),
the supreme ones, air upon
(the) face of the that water.
v3. And so to declare the
supreme ones, “So to exist to
illuminate”


The quote from their book 1 pdf calls the 'void' as being a salt water ocean, who do I argue with that the void is even further away than the farthest part of what we call the Universe? (the heaven in Ge.1.1)

The 'void' would be the location of the people who can witness the verse below (glorified bodies on their way to the location of the Great White Throne event that is the place called the 3rd heaven). That would be on the other side of what the void is. Heaven, ad defined in Ge.1 starts at the boundary of dry land or the surface of liquid water. The 1st heaven is as high as birds can fly. The 2nd heaven is the home of Angels and would include all heavenly bodies except for this earth.

Isa:51:6: Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Re.20:11
And I saw a great white throne,
and him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away;
and there was found no place for them.

2Co.12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body,
I cannot tell;
or whether out of the body,
I cannot tell:
God knoweth;)
such an one caught up to the third heaven.

If I'm that opposed that early I wouldn't bet on me agreeing with very much although If I can find the flood story it would be worth reading just to see the differences.

[FinalFour]

The premise of their project is that they hold to no particular doctrine or dogma, but have tried to provide a word by word, Hebrew character by character, and actually word for character translation. They are trying to offer a word, or concept -for each individual hebrew letter-- which do in fact express individual concepts.

Regarding your thoughs MHz, you may (or may not) be interested in a discussion on that subject started elsewhere, that looked at word by word concepts also-- including this idea of the void, or abyss, or the deep-- that you seem to have some understanding of>>> http://forums.armageddononline.org/chasing-peter-cottontail-t29395.html

I started the thread, but it seemed to lose steam quickly enough. It's a deep subject (grin).

[Lillith]

You prove my point Lillith. You should have noted that I distinguished between debunker and skeptic, contrasting ridiculer and cynic.

It's the easiest thing in the world to be a critic of much, while offering very little.

My comments were referencing Camping in particular as an illustration in context with post comments to which you previously agreed .



I started the thread, but it seemed to lose steam quickly enough. It's a deep subject (grin).[/


Too deep for who - those more shallow thinkers than yourself?

[MHz]

Too deep for those who do not who who is. lol

[The Word]

My comments were referencing Camping in particular as an illustration in context with post comments to which you previously agreed .



Too deep for who - those more shallow thinkers than yourself?

You're actually all thinking from the pit together. You won't get out of this hole until your flesh is destroyed soon. Then you'll always know the truth once you wake up in your new bodies in a place that I like to call, Paradise.

[FinalFour]

Lillith? Do I need to break it down for you?

Please. Try to follow. The points I was making were simple.

1. It takes few resources and no credentials to be a debunker.
2. It is healthy to be a skeptic.
3. It's easy to be a fault finder (cynic).
4. A ridiculer offers little to a discussion.


Too deep for who - those more shallow thinkers than yourself?

My reference had to do with the subject of the other thread (The Deep) and nothing to do with the difficulty of the reasoning required. I said it was "a deep subject" as a play on words. At no point did I say it was "too deep." Which hat are you wearing? Skeptic, Cynic, Ridiculer, or Fool? Try a thinking cap on for size and you'll be fine.

If you would like a personal demonstration of just how easy it is to constantly find fault in what others say, I'd be happy to shadow you for a week, or a month and comment on each of your posts. To be a critic is a simple thing. I can ridicule without even breaking a sweat.

For what purpose? To show I can?

I'm just trying to understand the role you've assumed on virtually every thread. There are always a few who like to stir the pot-- bless them one and all. But discussion on a discussion board should be encouraged, no?

You make a comment. I comment on your comment. And you get all pissy? Okay.

If you feel like I attacked you in some way, I apologize. I don't know why you would take it that way, but such is your right to take offense, even if none was intended. I thought I was expanding the conversation. Feel free to take exception to anything or everything I say.

[The Word]

Lillith? Do I need to break it down for you?

Please. Try to follow. The points I was making were simple.

1. It takes few resources and no credentials to be a debunker.
2. It is healthy to be a skeptic.
3. It's easy to be a fault finder (cynic).
4. A ridiculer offers little to a discussion.



My reference had to do with the subject of the other thread (The Deep) and nothing to do with the difficulty of the reasoning required. I said it was "a deep subject" as a play on words. At no point did I say it was "too deep." Which hat are you wearing? Skeptic, Cynic, Ridiculer, or Fool? Try a thinking cap on for size and you'll be fine.

If you would like a personal demonstration of just how easy it is to constantly find fault in what others say, I'd be happy to shadow you for a week, or a month and comment on each of your posts. To be a critic is a simple thing. I can ridicule without even breaking a sweat.

For what purpose? To show I can?

I'm just trying to understand the role you've assumed on virtually every thread. There are always a few who like to stir the pot-- bless them one and all. But discussion on a discussion board should be encouraged, no?

You make a comment. I comment on your comment. And you get all pissy? Okay.

If you feel like I attacked you in some way, I apologize. I don't know why you would take it that way, but such is your right to take offense, even if none was intended. I thought I was expanding the conversation. Feel free to take exception to anything or everything I say.

To find fault with a sinless saint, you have to lie as much as possible to make yourself either happy or very angry.

All flesh will be destroyed soon so you better lie a bunch before that happens, sinner.