Islam has many ideas here we analyze 3
when we look at the following "hadith" with modern values it is shocking. from the many hadiths many are unreliable however "bakhari" is more reliable for Muslims. it reports " in Bukhari It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”
western countries say "even if that age says she agrees she is too young to understand and it is statatury rape" we can comprehend what happens in a country where the "official" policy is islam what can happen to young girls.
2 regarding the afterlife cute wording in hadith bukhari [a more reliable hadith than other hadiths]
"Whoever believes (has Imaan) in Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), and establishes the prayer and fasts in the month of Ramadan, it is incumbent upon Allah that He enters him in Jannah. (Sahih al-Bukhari)" did you notice that cute wording!
jannah is a place of pleasure in the afterlife however, jannah does not include virgins. however a muslim explained to me that if a man is loyal to his wife with "no adultery" then he will be granted a gift of 72 virgins and if his wife is a good muslim she will be one of the 72 virgins with him.
these ideas fascinate me.
i also condemn the idea in quran 9.123 but here i analyze other stuff.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Saturday, October 21, 2017
when science books are not science
science is "supposedly" things we observe by seeing and testing yet somehow scientists think they have the right to talk about the past and the past was "not observed" so it is neither history nor science.
for example when science books claim the "time in the past" when there were dinosaurs and the age of the sun and geological eras that is "not observed" and not "written" so it is neither history nor science.
such "dates in the past" are just as bad as the stories in the bible which were "not observed either".
so why would anybody accept either idea?
humans tend to think that "if it is a magic book" like the bible that makes it "believable" and the same flaw is equaly blind faith if the scientist wrote about the past neither is observed and it is "not true science" just because a scientist wrote it.
well what about carbon dating?
we can observe some half lives for example "cu81" has 3.4 hours.or as other scientists measured and "observed" and Cu81(73.2±6.8 ms).the first source does not use the word half-life but that is the context as they group it woith zinc 72 ZINC "half-life 49 hours" called zn 72 [seaborg page 110 at 487] cf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113c2505X
the idea of half-life is the radiation does not stop after 98 hours just because it "radiated" half in 49 twice because the rate changes. like a dying flame less is emitted at differing rates less and less.
it is "not a steady rate" as i have heard some people claim. in my opinion it should beand run out after 98 but apparently it was observed. well the two observations refute each other for cu 81 copper . so much for "fact". carbon dating is just as bad as bible religions.
now people who challenge religion mention carbon dating and although as above religion is baseless, the same carbon dating is equaly a beaseless religion and when a human who usualy writes "true science" claim carbon dating "tells us the dates in the past" that is neither history nor science.
ken ham has a book in which he openly reveals his religious bias discussing god and this prejudice leads him to challenge the idea of half-life.
ken points out that "long term" half lifes [for example carbon claimed to decay over 5000 years" is called "a guess" because no single person OBSERVED it for 5000 years. did a scientist measure it 5 times each thousand years over the last 5000 years? even those who believe in the faith of carbon dating do not say that lie.
ken challenges "where did this guess come from" emphasis his.
ken brings the "formula" and challenges that observation of a short time is not observation of a long time and although his analogy of a poll is flawed it seems to me the idea is correct for a different reason because the idea of half-life itself is that the rate changes... so observing for any time refutes itself.
we can assume that half lifes happen the way thy occiur in zinc 72 but that is a guess who observed the rate of carbon. did anybody measure carbon each hundred years?
and how much was in the sample? nobody observed that the amount in the sample had a known amount. if scientists today claim "look there is so little" do we know how much more was in it when the dinosaur died? we say it had small amounts now and more then.
well lets do somne math doubling.
as wrote elsewhere if now there is one unit of radioactive and we double it each 5000 years how many times can we double something? try ten
1<2<4<8<16<32<64<128<256<512
in just 50000 years of ten "generations" of carbon dating claime dat around 5000 years per half life, it doubled ten times enough radiation to "microwave itself to death". over 70.000.000 as some dinosaur books say it would double even more times.
and we do not know how much was in it when the decay started.
in fact if a short time observation is "extrapolated" to long term the results can be vastly different from each other and as ken points out different radio-dating hjave differing results on page
using "various methods on the same sample" reveals different results refuting that "radiometric dating" refutes each other.on page 143 and of course the key question do we know the "product" called "initial amounts" whemn the ecay began by sending out radiation.
if the universe was as ancient as science books claim and that is as mentioned "not observed nor observable" and clearly not science just because someboduy who usualy writes science wrote or edited it...
how can any concentrations of radioactive material remain after solong? unless somebody used centrifuges or equipment to increase radiation...
***for me the key issue is the one ken ham writes on page 143 "initial amount" that was certainly not observed."inside the nye ham debate' that means a debate between mr ham and mr nye.
differing methods of the same sample refute each other because they are not the same results so which "methoid is the wrong calculation" which one/ mabe all.
so carbon dating is not only unreliable but worse discussing "the past" is neither history nor science.
so does that leave religion?
of course not! that was rejected at the beginning of this artice when moses claimed god told me stuff... was that observed?
when the bible said before man was created stuff happened no human observed it... before god "created man from the dirt and earth of the ground" self refutes any claim of observation. the bible never even claimed "god said to moses first i created light and then the sun and then animals over millions of years" none of those details are in the bible according to standards of "reading comprehension" what religious people do to corrupt the story is not only not the content of the bok but is non-comprehension. and they say you need to be an expert to know the different answers to "defend" what is baseless and non-observed did moses ever ccalim 'god told me this is what happened and when" not even claimed and if he would claim that claim itself is not observed so is he lying it is as baseless as if he was silen was moses telling the truth i do not know so it is the same as if he did not write anything.
the bible said everything in the bible is god inspiring the writers, that only gives the religious an excuse to burn the doubters at the stake... that does not show the contents are true the past is "not observed' so whether it is in a rleigious book or a science book it is neither true "history" nor science it simply is outside of science to speak about the past and as the character "sheldon" said about geology, "geology is not science' and that sentence is a very accurate criticism.
scientists observe it is "deep underground" that is known what that tells us is zero a "null set".
far from certainty and far from science. only certain things are science not the past who said? think for yourself.
for example when science books claim the "time in the past" when there were dinosaurs and the age of the sun and geological eras that is "not observed" and not "written" so it is neither history nor science.
such "dates in the past" are just as bad as the stories in the bible which were "not observed either".
so why would anybody accept either idea?
humans tend to think that "if it is a magic book" like the bible that makes it "believable" and the same flaw is equaly blind faith if the scientist wrote about the past neither is observed and it is "not true science" just because a scientist wrote it.
well what about carbon dating?
we can observe some half lives for example "cu81" has 3.4 hours.or as other scientists measured and "observed" and Cu81(73.2±6.8 ms).the first source does not use the word half-life but that is the context as they group it woith zinc 72 ZINC "half-life 49 hours" called zn 72 [seaborg page 110 at 487] cf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113c2505X
the idea of half-life is the radiation does not stop after 98 hours just because it "radiated" half in 49 twice because the rate changes. like a dying flame less is emitted at differing rates less and less.
it is "not a steady rate" as i have heard some people claim. in my opinion it should beand run out after 98 but apparently it was observed. well the two observations refute each other for cu 81 copper . so much for "fact". carbon dating is just as bad as bible religions.
now people who challenge religion mention carbon dating and although as above religion is baseless, the same carbon dating is equaly a beaseless religion and when a human who usualy writes "true science" claim carbon dating "tells us the dates in the past" that is neither history nor science.
ken ham has a book in which he openly reveals his religious bias discussing god and this prejudice leads him to challenge the idea of half-life.
ken points out that "long term" half lifes [for example carbon claimed to decay over 5000 years" is called "a guess" because no single person OBSERVED it for 5000 years. did a scientist measure it 5 times each thousand years over the last 5000 years? even those who believe in the faith of carbon dating do not say that lie.
ken challenges "where did this guess come from" emphasis his.
ken brings the "formula" and challenges that observation of a short time is not observation of a long time and although his analogy of a poll is flawed it seems to me the idea is correct for a different reason because the idea of half-life itself is that the rate changes... so observing for any time refutes itself.
we can assume that half lifes happen the way thy occiur in zinc 72 but that is a guess who observed the rate of carbon. did anybody measure carbon each hundred years?
and how much was in the sample? nobody observed that the amount in the sample had a known amount. if scientists today claim "look there is so little" do we know how much more was in it when the dinosaur died? we say it had small amounts now and more then.
well lets do somne math doubling.
as wrote elsewhere if now there is one unit of radioactive and we double it each 5000 years how many times can we double something? try ten
1<2<4<8<16<32<64<128<256<512
in just 50000 years of ten "generations" of carbon dating claime dat around 5000 years per half life, it doubled ten times enough radiation to "microwave itself to death". over 70.000.000 as some dinosaur books say it would double even more times.
and we do not know how much was in it when the decay started.
in fact if a short time observation is "extrapolated" to long term the results can be vastly different from each other and as ken points out different radio-dating hjave differing results on page
using "various methods on the same sample" reveals different results refuting that "radiometric dating" refutes each other.on page 143 and of course the key question do we know the "product" called "initial amounts" whemn the ecay began by sending out radiation.
if the universe was as ancient as science books claim and that is as mentioned "not observed nor observable" and clearly not science just because someboduy who usualy writes science wrote or edited it...
how can any concentrations of radioactive material remain after solong? unless somebody used centrifuges or equipment to increase radiation...
***for me the key issue is the one ken ham writes on page 143 "initial amount" that was certainly not observed."inside the nye ham debate' that means a debate between mr ham and mr nye.
differing methods of the same sample refute each other because they are not the same results so which "methoid is the wrong calculation" which one/ mabe all.
so carbon dating is not only unreliable but worse discussing "the past" is neither history nor science.
so does that leave religion?
of course not! that was rejected at the beginning of this artice when moses claimed god told me stuff... was that observed?
when the bible said before man was created stuff happened no human observed it... before god "created man from the dirt and earth of the ground" self refutes any claim of observation. the bible never even claimed "god said to moses first i created light and then the sun and then animals over millions of years" none of those details are in the bible according to standards of "reading comprehension" what religious people do to corrupt the story is not only not the content of the bok but is non-comprehension. and they say you need to be an expert to know the different answers to "defend" what is baseless and non-observed did moses ever ccalim 'god told me this is what happened and when" not even claimed and if he would claim that claim itself is not observed so is he lying it is as baseless as if he was silen was moses telling the truth i do not know so it is the same as if he did not write anything.
the bible said everything in the bible is god inspiring the writers, that only gives the religious an excuse to burn the doubters at the stake... that does not show the contents are true the past is "not observed' so whether it is in a rleigious book or a science book it is neither true "history" nor science it simply is outside of science to speak about the past and as the character "sheldon" said about geology, "geology is not science' and that sentence is a very accurate criticism.
scientists observe it is "deep underground" that is known what that tells us is zero a "null set".
far from certainty and far from science. only certain things are science not the past who said? think for yourself.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
added words in translation
we tend to trust translations of the new testament.
what if the translators ADDED words, sometimes it is helpul but what if it changes the meaning?
when we look at the list on the following page almost all translations agree about the words "do all things" like do anything.
4:13 πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με
panta=all iskyo=able
how to connect these words , "all able" by my strengthener?
omnipotent? only god is omnipotent. it did not say omnipotent.
if we believe the translation we must have faith and state yes omnipotent.
i can overly-borrow on all my credit cards and god will repay because "can do all things" that would be faith but what if words were ADDED?
no words "do" nor "things" so not really "do anything"
compare: can do all things= do anything
or "can all" what is missing?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%204:13
almost all translations agree about the words "do everything"
so why in merlins name is CEB so different?
common english bible which is usualy reliable on other issues, as i checked, is again more accurate in this instance because of the added words.
it appears that ceb added words but it realy replaces words.
"CEB I can endure all these things" a very different idea than "i can do anything." paul was speaking about his past PAST and context of content. yet why is there a difference?
almost all translations say "do anything" yet people go bankrupt even if they are christains.
niv at that site has a change "can do all this" that is a different message!
which is the bad translation?
all matches "panta pas"="inclusive" idea but no greek word for "do" that was added greek is "all able through"
how to connect these words?
context is always what is nearby so "these" is the best connector in this context not adding do+things="do all+thing" instead able="prevailed all these" as described in verse before it. the text itself has a diffferent message and now we discover that there is no basis for the majority of translation which added words and in this instance changed the message this time ceb is most accurate and we discover no basis to gamble on your credit cards behold!
a similar difference is in the "anything verse" in john 14 askfor anything?
yet the greek word is a pronoun for the word some! SOME-!- that differs from ask for anything "tis' is some.
now we cannot test if the bible is a lie because it only said ask some and it will be given for the fathers glory and besides you was the listener in that audience before the crucifixion so no test. think for yourself do not commit to any book nor translation
what if the translators ADDED words, sometimes it is helpul but what if it changes the meaning?
when we look at the list on the following page almost all translations agree about the words "do all things" like do anything.
4:13 πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με
panta=all iskyo=able
how to connect these words , "all able" by my strengthener?
omnipotent? only god is omnipotent. it did not say omnipotent.
if we believe the translation we must have faith and state yes omnipotent.
i can overly-borrow on all my credit cards and god will repay because "can do all things" that would be faith but what if words were ADDED?
no words "do" nor "things" so not really "do anything"
compare: can do all things= do anything
or "can all" what is missing?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%204:13
almost all translations agree about the words "do everything"
so why in merlins name is CEB so different?
common english bible which is usualy reliable on other issues, as i checked, is again more accurate in this instance because of the added words.
it appears that ceb added words but it realy replaces words.
"CEB I can endure all these things" a very different idea than "i can do anything." paul was speaking about his past PAST and context of content. yet why is there a difference?
almost all translations say "do anything" yet people go bankrupt even if they are christains.
niv at that site has a change "can do all this" that is a different message!
which is the bad translation?
all matches "panta pas"="inclusive" idea but no greek word for "do" that was added greek is "all able through"
how to connect these words?
context is always what is nearby so "these" is the best connector in this context not adding do+things="do all+thing" instead able="prevailed all these" as described in verse before it. the text itself has a diffferent message and now we discover that there is no basis for the majority of translation which added words and in this instance changed the message this time ceb is most accurate and we discover no basis to gamble on your credit cards behold!
a similar difference is in the "anything verse" in john 14 askfor anything?
yet the greek word is a pronoun for the word some! SOME-!- that differs from ask for anything "tis' is some.
now we cannot test if the bible is a lie because it only said ask some and it will be given for the fathers glory and besides you was the listener in that audience before the crucifixion so no test. think for yourself do not commit to any book nor translation
marriage, what is it good for?
so people want to get married people in america around age 20 get married. for what?
some people are told no sex before marriage then they think that AFTER in a marriage they can have sex which is pleassant.
but after they are married people say marriage is "not only about sex" meaning you will not egt sex inmarrriage.
so what marriage essentially is means "no sex with other women"+plus while most of the time the wife is nnot in the mood either MOSTLY because she already satisfied herself with orgasm using her own clitoris.
now we consider it a crime to remove clitoris but after the fatc we see aclear benefit in muslim culture because western women are often not in the mood after they satisfy themselves with their own clitors.
sadly only in comedy's we can joka about the horrific truth as peter griffin said you mean a commitment not to sleep with other women? why would i do that? that is not fun giving us the worfds to expreess a true problem which cannot be corrected because women do self satisfy and we cannot remove their clitoris yet.
how about when the wife says i am not in the mood. well men have desires and needs apparently "more frequently" look at WHO PAYS to whom in the culture of prostitute PROSTITUE WOMEN ARE NOT DESPERATE FOR IT BUT MEN ARE SO DESPERATE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT
and after we know this we see so many people getting married do they think that is beneficial?
to deny themselves other women exclusively in marriage while at the same time being told by a wife she is not in the mood- well that would be okay if men could go for 6 months without sex... but we look at the whole picture men do want frequent and have been desperate enuf to pay while womendo have clitporis and do self-saticfy and and do say no...
so only fools would get married tricked that after marriage they will get sex... that is not a reason to get married because you will not get from wife nor from another and men cannot wiat six months like women do.
so you are saying i am exclusive not have sex with others and also not have sex with wife?
what is marriage "GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" like the song war...
Lyrics
War, huh, good god, What is it good for
Absolutely nothing…
Artist: Edwin Starr
Album: War & Peace
Released: 1970
Genre: Classic soul
Awards: Grammy Hall of Fame
marriage is a religious idea on young men who do not understand that women use their clitoris to self dsatisfy and push the man away... IT IS TRULY NOT INFORMED CONSENT.
unless they are in a muslim culture. for the last few years i only had relationships with "maimed" women not long term but at least "they put out".
some people are told no sex before marriage then they think that AFTER in a marriage they can have sex which is pleassant.
but after they are married people say marriage is "not only about sex" meaning you will not egt sex inmarrriage.
so what marriage essentially is means "no sex with other women"+plus while most of the time the wife is nnot in the mood either MOSTLY because she already satisfied herself with orgasm using her own clitoris.
now we consider it a crime to remove clitoris but after the fatc we see aclear benefit in muslim culture because western women are often not in the mood after they satisfy themselves with their own clitors.
sadly only in comedy's we can joka about the horrific truth as peter griffin said you mean a commitment not to sleep with other women? why would i do that? that is not fun giving us the worfds to expreess a true problem which cannot be corrected because women do self satisfy and we cannot remove their clitoris yet.
how about when the wife says i am not in the mood. well men have desires and needs apparently "more frequently" look at WHO PAYS to whom in the culture of prostitute PROSTITUE WOMEN ARE NOT DESPERATE FOR IT BUT MEN ARE SO DESPERATE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT
and after we know this we see so many people getting married do they think that is beneficial?
to deny themselves other women exclusively in marriage while at the same time being told by a wife she is not in the mood- well that would be okay if men could go for 6 months without sex... but we look at the whole picture men do want frequent and have been desperate enuf to pay while womendo have clitporis and do self-saticfy and and do say no...
so only fools would get married tricked that after marriage they will get sex... that is not a reason to get married because you will not get from wife nor from another and men cannot wiat six months like women do.
so you are saying i am exclusive not have sex with others and also not have sex with wife?
what is marriage "GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" like the song war...
Lyrics
War, huh, good god, What is it good for
Absolutely nothing…
Artist: Edwin Starr
Album: War & Peace
Released: 1970
Genre: Classic soul
Awards: Grammy Hall of Fame
marriage is a religious idea on young men who do not understand that women use their clitoris to self dsatisfy and push the man away... IT IS TRULY NOT INFORMED CONSENT.
unless they are in a muslim culture. for the last few years i only had relationships with "maimed" women not long term but at least "they put out".
Friday, October 13, 2017
voldemort horcrux summary from harry potter
I have seen several lists of horcrux each with missing details and have assembled several lists together with some criticism.
i quote one users good point that the fang was not used to kill voldemorts life inside harry, which indeed indicates that harry was not truly a "horcrux" because the wizerd "makes" one and Harry carried life but was not a horcrux therefore did not need basilisk venom. replace to complete list with the goblet in the bank which harry destroyed using gryffindors sword.
list
Tom Riddle's diary Harry used a basilisk fang/tooth to destroy in 1992 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Gaunt's Ring Albus destroyed with Gryffindor's sword (between 1992-1995) destruction not shown.
Salazar Slytherin's Locket Ron destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I.
Helga Hufflepuff's Cup Hermione Granger destroyed it with a basilisk tooth/fang in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
+Another goblet in bank harry destroyed it with Gryffindor's sword in 1998
Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem Harry destroyed with basilisk fang/tooth during magical fire [from Crabbe's incantation? or goyle's fire? ron said goyle is burning everything] in 1998 Fiendfyre in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter carried life of Voldemort who destroyed it with avada kadabra in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 some count this as a horcrux but i disagree.
Nagini the Snake of voldemort, Neville Longbottom destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
also in the harry potter universe the number on the brom nimbus 2001 is probably a model number however it could be a year number if they celebrated christmas we know they did but from TEN BC in the reign of king herod because he certainly was not born after 4 bc.
the idea in the second answer "ten bc" is based only on the in-universe fact that the book tells the story about 1992 indicating a ten year gap if it would mean a year. i suggest the ten year gap is because they knew the true year when jesus was born but only based on the "gap" mentioned.
1992-2001=ten BC the starting point of the year count from christ- another hint is they celebrated christmas- but that is only a clue.
i quote one users good point that the fang was not used to kill voldemorts life inside harry, which indeed indicates that harry was not truly a "horcrux" because the wizerd "makes" one and Harry carried life but was not a horcrux therefore did not need basilisk venom. replace to complete list with the goblet in the bank which harry destroyed using gryffindors sword.
list
Tom Riddle's diary Harry used a basilisk fang/tooth to destroy in 1992 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Gaunt's Ring Albus destroyed with Gryffindor's sword (between 1992-1995) destruction not shown.
Salazar Slytherin's Locket Ron destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I.
Helga Hufflepuff's Cup Hermione Granger destroyed it with a basilisk tooth/fang in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
+Another goblet in bank harry destroyed it with Gryffindor's sword in 1998
Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem Harry destroyed with basilisk fang/tooth during magical fire [from Crabbe's incantation? or goyle's fire? ron said goyle is burning everything] in 1998 Fiendfyre in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter carried life of Voldemort who destroyed it with avada kadabra in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 some count this as a horcrux but i disagree.
Nagini the Snake of voldemort, Neville Longbottom destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
also in the harry potter universe the number on the brom nimbus 2001 is probably a model number however it could be a year number if they celebrated christmas we know they did but from TEN BC in the reign of king herod because he certainly was not born after 4 bc.
the idea in the second answer "ten bc" is based only on the in-universe fact that the book tells the story about 1992 indicating a ten year gap if it would mean a year. i suggest the ten year gap is because they knew the true year when jesus was born but only based on the "gap" mentioned.
1992-2001=ten BC the starting point of the year count from christ- another hint is they celebrated christmas- but that is only a clue.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
yahwah's calendar
in the "pentatuech calendar" tomorrow called date 28 called thursday is a special biblical day the day at the "end of 150" when the boat of noa rested on the mountain called ararat.
in genesis 7+8 we see 150 from 17 of second month leading to the seventh month the same as trumpets in 7 month hebrew "trua" literally singing
we know the month named "abib" is the one "anchored to the season spring" in deuteronomy and "second" month counts from the first "abib" [source exodus 12] so we can assemble the pentatuiech puzzle - the season spring based on nature in jerusalem region [called juda and called israel in the new testament matthew] has the technical equinox on a certain date starting spring. +47 days later is the 17 of second month+150 days later at "the end of 150" is the 17 of seventh month [unveiling the length of a pentetuechal month] the same seven as trumpets, so counting the 150 days reaches date we call september 28 [unless the extra day in february changes the number of each date]
thus we can define the precise amount of error of the rabbis who were 28-17=11 who were nine 9 days away from the biblical trumpet feast and have missed the "biblical day of atonement" by using a different calendar with a different system and babylonian names since the return from babylon [book ezra] separate babylon calendar means do not attempt to try to align them because the rabbi calendar is from babylon. a separate culture.
in genesis 7+8 we see 150 from 17 of second month leading to the seventh month the same as trumpets in 7 month hebrew "trua" literally singing
we know the month named "abib" is the one "anchored to the season spring" in deuteronomy and "second" month counts from the first "abib" [source exodus 12] so we can assemble the pentatuiech puzzle - the season spring based on nature in jerusalem region [called juda and called israel in the new testament matthew] has the technical equinox on a certain date starting spring. +47 days later is the 17 of second month+150 days later at "the end of 150" is the 17 of seventh month [unveiling the length of a pentetuechal month] the same seven as trumpets, so counting the 150 days reaches date we call september 28 [unless the extra day in february changes the number of each date]
thus we can define the precise amount of error of the rabbis who were 28-17=11 who were nine 9 days away from the biblical trumpet feast and have missed the "biblical day of atonement" by using a different calendar with a different system and babylonian names since the return from babylon [book ezra] separate babylon calendar means do not attempt to try to align them because the rabbi calendar is from babylon. a separate culture.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
axis and allies only a game
INTRODUCTION i would play axis and allies in 1980's version 1984 and one thing i noticed as a child is the battleship of washington=W in pacific this surprised me then because the game claimed to base itself on "spring 1942" situation and if so that was when the US lost its pacific battleships and a justly prepared game would require using resources to build battleships.
CONSIDER setting the war in "spring 1942" allows the repairs until May 1942 so either start december 8 with w responding and require resources OR start before december 7 and let player for japan choose to delay attacking w navy or not. the decision after repairs then it should start japan begins not russia and waiting until may 1942 LATE ENUF TO COUNT the maryland gives w 6 battleships in pacific when equality was possible. choosing spring is a decision which saves w 24 units why spring? to help one side??
consider they returned to service in february=tennesee and march 30 =pensylvania and in may=maryland, joining the new-mexico, mississippi and idaho totalling 6, by spring 1942"
shows 3 returning to operate in february wrong about the maryland.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/battleships.html
with 3 sent to pacific in january yet maryland operated MONTH MAY SEE
https://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B133
2 also we see 8 bs of japan near tokyo and four 4 more near siam in 1942
if 4 is enuf then tokyo deserves 2 representatives or do not decide "after repairs" for 6.
also https://ww2db.com/ship.php?list=B
part 2 we see at the following link "all" the second wave returned well except 20, the battleships are "ineffective" in defense against aircraft EVEN when prepared in second wave so 4/6
66% is unjusly defined for defense. even attack cannot destroy a division of soldiers in attack and battleship barham lost sunk in 1941 by submarine failed to hit the sub without destroyer-type with many depth charges to be effective.
http://www.pacificwar.org.au/pearlharbor/SecondWaveAttack.html
"all" returned beside twenty.
bs ineffective even as planes approached them and EVEN when prepared second wave. planes "nine in the first attack wave, 20 in the second) with another 74 damaged by antiaircraft fire from the ground"
so here is the history of that year
w moved 3 battleships to pacific in the first months of 1942 after the damage to the pacific fleet and similarly british had 3 battleships in med after the barsham sunk. we assume this is just.
if so how can 26 submarines not count as a submarine group represented in the game in the mediteranean for nazi. and if so japanese had 12 battleships TWICE AS many. if 6 counts as two groups how can 12 be less than 4 groups! this is unjustly prepared.
japan had 8 battleships near tokyo and that is one group in the game how can the british and w get 2 groups for only 6 total that is unjustly prepared and in terms of the game tilts the game in favor of allies which already have more resources also unjustly because brazil was neutral intil 1945 and same for mexxico all south of california was neutral and did not help nazi nor washington w until 1945. so w should have potential of 29 not 36 and need to use it if the strategy is to build battleship.
japan has many to represent many but if so tokyo should have two groups for 8 and south pacific another group of 4 while only london has 4 but 3 is too small to be represented. and the allies should be required to use resources if they want to build battleships.
furthermore why is eastern america more than potential of germany? it should be ten each and western america much less developed should be like japan 8 yet unjustly 22 4 to many and add to that the neutral which were neutral and this is unjustly prepared. and why is hawaii better than solomon islands besides the actual soldiers on the isles.
no justly preparing a game would mean washington has zero battleships after the damage and one aircraft carrier group survived the 3 battleships are olsd and too small to be a group otherwise japan deserrves two representatives in tokyo for 8 besides the group in malaysia...
similarly in mediteranean the submarines of nazi do not "count" as enuf to be represented in the game so the same for the british ones in malta near italy not near north egypt and even the battleshiip group after losing barsham 3 is not a group or else tokyo with 8 should have 3 groups represented no 4 is the line and only one bs london for 4 and no bs nor ss in med because otherwise that is "bs"-! and so japan only one in south and stiull should have two bs in tokyo! 8 bs is two groups while truly 3 in pacific like 3 in med are too few to be a group a compromise of 5 in a group we can still pretend the south has 5 because tokyo has more than 5 while london has less than 5 and we can imagine one of med completes it but not 2 representatives because 3 is too few or else japan should have four representatives...no japan only 3 not 4 bs, 2 bs in tokyo region while us lost so zero unless build with potential of 10+8+2=twenty like germany and japan. not enough for a bs because brazil and mexico are neutral so would need to save to build bs while britian has potential like japan to spend all resources on one bs unless lose west africa or egypt or undefended australia then 24 minus one is not enough like washington and china is own fighting since 1935 not providing washington with steel for a batlleship jeez jesus christ ! it is not a challenge when it is so tipped unjustly make the game like the situation and let the dice ROLL.
CONSIDER setting the war in "spring 1942" allows the repairs until May 1942 so either start december 8 with w responding and require resources OR start before december 7 and let player for japan choose to delay attacking w navy or not. the decision after repairs then it should start japan begins not russia and waiting until may 1942 LATE ENUF TO COUNT the maryland gives w 6 battleships in pacific when equality was possible. choosing spring is a decision which saves w 24 units why spring? to help one side??
consider they returned to service in february=tennesee and march 30 =pensylvania and in may=maryland, joining the new-mexico, mississippi and idaho totalling 6, by spring 1942"
shows 3 returning to operate in february wrong about the maryland.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/battleships.html
with 3 sent to pacific in january yet maryland operated MONTH MAY SEE
https://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B133
2 also we see 8 bs of japan near tokyo and four 4 more near siam in 1942
if 4 is enuf then tokyo deserves 2 representatives or do not decide "after repairs" for 6.
also https://ww2db.com/ship.php?list=B
part 2 we see at the following link "all" the second wave returned well except 20, the battleships are "ineffective" in defense against aircraft EVEN when prepared in second wave so 4/6
66% is unjusly defined for defense. even attack cannot destroy a division of soldiers in attack and battleship barham lost sunk in 1941 by submarine failed to hit the sub without destroyer-type with many depth charges to be effective.
http://www.pacificwar.org.au/pearlharbor/SecondWaveAttack.html
"all" returned beside twenty.
bs ineffective even as planes approached them and EVEN when prepared second wave. planes "nine in the first attack wave, 20 in the second) with another 74 damaged by antiaircraft fire from the ground"
so here is the history of that year
w moved 3 battleships to pacific in the first months of 1942 after the damage to the pacific fleet and similarly british had 3 battleships in med after the barsham sunk. we assume this is just.
if so how can 26 submarines not count as a submarine group represented in the game in the mediteranean for nazi. and if so japanese had 12 battleships TWICE AS many. if 6 counts as two groups how can 12 be less than 4 groups! this is unjustly prepared.
japan had 8 battleships near tokyo and that is one group in the game how can the british and w get 2 groups for only 6 total that is unjustly prepared and in terms of the game tilts the game in favor of allies which already have more resources also unjustly because brazil was neutral intil 1945 and same for mexxico all south of california was neutral and did not help nazi nor washington w until 1945. so w should have potential of 29 not 36 and need to use it if the strategy is to build battleship.
japan has many to represent many but if so tokyo should have two groups for 8 and south pacific another group of 4 while only london has 4 but 3 is too small to be represented. and the allies should be required to use resources if they want to build battleships.
furthermore why is eastern america more than potential of germany? it should be ten each and western america much less developed should be like japan 8 yet unjustly 22 4 to many and add to that the neutral which were neutral and this is unjustly prepared. and why is hawaii better than solomon islands besides the actual soldiers on the isles.
no justly preparing a game would mean washington has zero battleships after the damage and one aircraft carrier group survived the 3 battleships are olsd and too small to be a group otherwise japan deserrves two representatives in tokyo for 8 besides the group in malaysia...
similarly in mediteranean the submarines of nazi do not "count" as enuf to be represented in the game so the same for the british ones in malta near italy not near north egypt and even the battleshiip group after losing barsham 3 is not a group or else tokyo with 8 should have 3 groups represented no 4 is the line and only one bs london for 4 and no bs nor ss in med because otherwise that is "bs"-! and so japan only one in south and stiull should have two bs in tokyo! 8 bs is two groups while truly 3 in pacific like 3 in med are too few to be a group a compromise of 5 in a group we can still pretend the south has 5 because tokyo has more than 5 while london has less than 5 and we can imagine one of med completes it but not 2 representatives because 3 is too few or else japan should have four representatives...no japan only 3 not 4 bs, 2 bs in tokyo region while us lost so zero unless build with potential of 10+8+2=twenty like germany and japan. not enough for a bs because brazil and mexico are neutral so would need to save to build bs while britian has potential like japan to spend all resources on one bs unless lose west africa or egypt or undefended australia then 24 minus one is not enough like washington and china is own fighting since 1935 not providing washington with steel for a batlleship jeez jesus christ ! it is not a challenge when it is so tipped unjustly make the game like the situation and let the dice ROLL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)