Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
I've often wondered about this!!
Daniel declared:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
If one of Adam's Ribs was taken to be used as the basis for
Eve, wouldn't this mean that Men should have an odd number
of Ribs whereas Women should have an even number of Ribs??
It would mean that Adam had an odd number of ribs. No reason
his descendants would too. (e.g. You lost an hand but you can
still sire two-handed children. Same thing applies here.)
OTOH some people think the rib thing is a mistranslation.
According to them, the original Hebrew really says God cut
open Adam’s side and pulled Eve out of the slit.
OT*O*OH the whole story isn’t literally true anyway.
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
If one of Adam's Ribs was taken to be used as the basis for Eve,
wouldn't this mean that Men should have an odd number of Ribs whereas
Women should have an even number of Ribs??
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
Why would you wonder? Clearly it's just a story.
It is not meant to be taken literally!!!
Daniel declared:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
If one of Adam's Ribs was taken to be used as the basis for Eve,
wouldn't this mean that Men should have an odd number of Ribs whereas
Women should have an even number of Ribs??
It would mean that Adam had an odd number of ribs. No reason
his descendants would too. (e.g. You lost an hand but you can still
sire two-handed children. Same thing applies here.)
OTOH some people think the rib thing is a mistranslation.
According to them, the original Hebrew really says God cut
open Adam’s side and pulled Eve out of the slit.
OT*O*OH the whole story isn’t literally true anyway.
--
solar penguin
solar penguin wrote:
Daniel declared:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
If one of Adam's Ribs was taken to be used as the basis for
Eve, wouldn't this mean that Men should have an odd number
of Ribs whereas Women should have an even number of Ribs??
It would mean that Adam had an odd number of ribs. No reason
his descendants would too. (e.g. You lost an hand but you can
still sire two-handed children. Same thing applies here.)
OTOH some people think the rib thing is a mistranslation.
According to them, the original Hebrew really says God cut
open Adam’s side and pulled Eve out of the slit.
OT*O*OH the whole story isn’t literally true anyway.
Unless they had said mankind was created from the bone of Adam...
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
In article <xn0p7jpfwa1luw3002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
Why would you wonder? Clearly it's just a story.
It is not meant to be taken literally!!!
Atheism is #fakenews.
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the
origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7jpfwa1luw3002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
Why would you wonder? Clearly it's just a story.
It is not meant to be taken literally!!!
Atheism is #fakenews.
So, you believe in a story that says women were created from a
bone taken out of the side of a man? Really?
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest.
Plus, one of their sons murdered another one of their sons, so if your
story book was taken literally means we'd all be descended from an
in-bred murderer! What a great start for humanity!
I reckon there must have been a bit of inbreeding among the Yadallees
over the years for you to have such simple beliefs. Most people know
that sort of thing causes mental weaknesses, so it would explain a
lot...
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:44:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest.
Not sure incest is true in the case of clones. :-)
If Jenny is the Doctor’s daughter, then Eve is Adam’s!
Plus those sons supposedly married women, but where did those women
come from?
They must’ve asked God to do the clone trick for them too!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7jpfwa1luw3002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 27/06/2025 9:36 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:I've often wondered about this!!
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
Why would you wonder? Clearly it's just a story.
It is not meant to be taken literally!!!
Atheism is #fakenews.
So, you believe in a story that says women were created from a
bone taken out of the side of a man? Really?
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest. Plus, one of their
sons murdered another one of their sons, so if your story book
was taken literally means we'd all be descended from an in-bred
murderer! What a great start for humanity!
I reckon there must have been a bit of inbreeding among the
Yadallees over the years for you to have such simple beliefs.
Most people know that sort of thing causes mental weaknesses,
so it would explain a lot...
On 27/06/2025 12:19, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the
origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
--
solar penguin
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed. >Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he met decades earlier so
we can assume it was doing the rounds since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2025-06-27 11:36:40 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence of females
being created from the rib of a man...
That claim is therefore #fakenews
#fakenews pretty covers everything in silly religions.
The True loon lectured:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place.
That depends what you mean by “The Bible”. It isn’t one book
but a collection of many books written at different times and
based on different sources which in turn drew from different
traditions.
There isn’t one single date when it was written.
The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
That might be possible. Genesis is based on three sources: the
E source(Elohist), J source (Jahwist) and P source (Priestly).
And they all drew on earlier traditions and stories.
It’s possible one of them might’ve taken something from the same >traditional story that Plato and friends used.
But that still doesn’t mean that Plato’s version of the story is Biblical >canon. Genesis also drew on Mesopotamian creation myths like the
Enuma Elish. But that doesn’t make the Mesopotamian versions of
those myths canon. Why should Plato be any different?
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
--
solar penguin
On 2025-06-27 23:31:49 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:44:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest.
Not sure incest is true in the case of clones. :-)
If Jenny is the Doctor’s daughter, then Eve is Adam’s!
I don't know what the legalities are. Since clones do not really exist >(outside sheep, etc.), such things probably haven't even been thought
about legally yet.
Plus those sons supposedly married women, but where did those women
come from?
They must’ve asked God to do the clone trick for them too!
Some places say those women came from outside the Garden of Eden ...
which simply changes the nonsense to 'prove' that Adam and Eve were not >actually the only humans around.
Some places say that the Garden of Eden was simply a small area where
nobody lived until Adam 'appeared' there.
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve.
Originally Adam and Eve were one. Read Aristophanes' speech
in Plato's Symposium which makes the origin of the Bible
story clear especially when Socrates cites the original
source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve. Originally Adam and Eve were one. Read Aristophanes'
speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the origin of the
Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis
story, it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical
canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The
story already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was
even composed. Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he
met decades earlier so we can assume it was doing the rounds
since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:44:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest.
Not sure incest is true in the case of clones. :-)
If Jenny is the Doctor’s daughter, then Eve is Adam’s!
Plus those sons supposedly married women, but where did
those women come from?
They must’ve asked God to do the clone trick for them too!
Atheism is #fakenews.
On 2025-06-27 23:31:49 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Plus those sons supposedly married women, but where did
those women come from?
They must’ve asked God to do the clone trick for them too!
Some places say those women came from outside the Garden of
Eden ... which simply changes the nonsense to 'prove' that
Adam and Eve were not actually the only humans around.
Some places say that the Garden of Eden was simply a small
area where nobody lived until Adam 'appeared' there.
On 27/06/2025 12:19, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve.
Originally Adam and Eve were one.
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
The Doctor wrote:
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs as
you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because your
bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you to do
what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement to what
you have been told. The only fake thing here is your religion...
but it is a good industry for lining the pockets of church elders
and getting access to under-age children. That seems to me to be
it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two could
mate and have children with the female that had been split away
from his body... anyone believing in that stuff should be locked
up for their own safety.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 27/06/2025 12:19, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Originally Adam and Eve were one.
So they got divorced? <shrugs> It happens.
solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve.
Originally Adam and Eve were one. Read Aristophanes' speech
in Plato's Symposium which makes the origin of the Bible
story clear especially when Socrates cites the original
source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
Fanfic? I like that!
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
There isn't much in the Bible that called be termed a fact
either. So one lot of fantasy writing is much the same as
another as far as I am concerned. The fact that supposedly
intelligent people believe in such nonsense in the 21st Century
is mind boggling.
If you post some news about something on Usenet, people ask for
a link if you didn't provide one... but they then believe in
random stuff told to them by a paedo in a pulpit and don't ask
for any evidence to support the wild claims they are preaching.
Claims more wilder than anything you'd see in the modern world.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve. Originally Adam and Eve were one. Read Aristophanes'
speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the origin of the
Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis
story, it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical
canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The
story already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was
even composed. Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he
met decades earlier so we can assume it was doing the rounds
since at least 450 BC
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
<claps>
You get an A+ for getting our annual Summer Religion Class back
on topic for RADW.
solar penguin wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:44:27 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Plus, if Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, when they
mated and had children that would be incest.
Not sure incest is true in the case of clones. :-)
If Jenny is the Doctor’s daughter, then Eve is Adam’s!
As they had children together that's even sicker!
It seems that bible thing is a handbook of disgusting sick
perversion written by old men to sexually groom children.
Plus those sons supposedly married women, but where did
those women come from?
They must’ve asked God to do the clone trick for them too!
I wonder where their probic vent is located?
The Doctor wrote:
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs as
you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because your
bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you to do
what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement to what
you have been told. The only fake thing here is your religion...
but it is a good industry for lining the pockets of church elders
and getting access to under-age children. That seems to me to be
it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two could
mate and have children with the female that had been split away
from his body... anyone believing in that stuff should be locked
up for their own safety.
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!! ;-P
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs as
you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because your
bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you to do
what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement to what
you have been told. The only fake thing here is your religion...
but it is a good industry for lining the pockets of church elders
and getting access to under-age children. That seems to me to be
it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two could
mate and have children with the female that had been split away
from his body... anyone believing in that stuff should be locked
up for their own safety.
--
Daniel70
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bull, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
--
Daniel70
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
In article <xn0p7kuq8b4h7z6002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured
Tom Baker and some Daleks.
and then there is the 1st Book of Moses.
In article <xn0p7kvgyb5jvau006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs
as you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years
ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because
your bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you
to do what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement
to what you have been told. The only fake thing here is your
religion... but it is a good industry for lining the
pockets of church elders and getting access to under-age
children. That seems to me to be it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
You are irrational BS.
Atheism is #fakenews.
On 2025-06-28 2:34 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Funny how some people fixate on Genesis 2 and the creation of
Adam and Eve but completely ignore Genesis 1.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
No ribs, no mud, no DNA. So which myth is the correct myth?
Yes binky, they are myths, stories that attempt to explain how
mankind came to be on earth.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 27/06/2025 12:19, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Eve was made from Adam's rib.
Therefore they had the same DNA.
Therefore they were the same gender.
So Eve quietly transitioned?
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Originally Adam and Eve were one.
So they got divorced? <shrugs> It happens.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of s*t, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7kuq8b4h7z6002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured
Tom Baker and some Daleks.
and then there is the 1st Book of Moses.
Moses can go f*k himself and stick his book of fables up his
arse. Genesis means "Genesis of the Daleks"... everyone knows
that!
The Doctor wrote:
BS and SP can team up to say weird things.
I won't bang my own drum, so I'll just say SP usually
says fairly sensible things. We work well together.
The only person that says weird things here is YOU!!!
Idlehands wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted.
On 2025-06-28 2:34 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Funny how some people fixate on Genesis 2 and the creation of
Adam and Eve but completely ignore Genesis 1.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
My issue is... well, one of my many issues is... where was this
god located if he looked like a man? There was no planet Earth
for him to stand on before he created it, so where did he live?
The only sensible conclusion is that he was an alien, meaning we
are created in the image of an alien. Plus, if he created
mankind [meaning the human race collectively] in his own image,
why does half of mankind have a cock and the other half a
vagina? Did this alien god have both?
I have mentioned these issues many times, yet our resident
expert on Christianity is unable to give me a sensible
explanation or a counter-argument to my conclusions.
No ribs, no mud, no DNA. So which myth is the correct myth?
The only spare ribs that matter are the ones that come in the
foil container coated in that tasty red Chinese sauce.
Yes binky, they are myths, stories that attempt to explain how
mankind came to be on earth.
Stories to explain how mankind came to Earth before science
taught us a heck of a lot more than the people back then were
aware of. But just stories at the end of the day and not meant
to be taken 100% literally in 2025 by seemingly educated people.
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he met decades earlier so
we can assume it was doing the rounds since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-06-28 2:34 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Funny how some people fixate on Genesis 2 and the creation of
Adam and Eve but completely ignore Genesis 1.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
My issue is... well, one of my many issues is... where was this
god located if he looked like a man? There was no planet Earth
for him to stand on before he created it, so where did he live?
The only sensible conclusion is that he was an alien, meaning we
are created in the image of an alien.
Plus, if he created mankind [meaning the human race collectively]
in his own image, why does half of mankind have a cock and the
other half a vagina? Did this alien god have both?
I have mentioned these issues many times, yet our resident
expert on Christianity is unable to give me a sensible
explanation or a counter-argument to my conclusions.
No ribs, no mud, no DNA. So which myth is the correct myth?
The only spare ribs that matter are the ones that come in the
foil container coated in that tasty red Chinese sauce.
Yes binky, they are myths, stories that attempt to explain how
mankind came to be on earth.
Stories to explain how mankind came to Earth before science
taught us a heck of a lot more than the people back then were
aware of. But just stories at the end of the day and not meant
to be taken 100% literally in 2025 by seemingly educated people.
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
On 28/06/2025 03:28, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he met decades earlier so
we can assume it was doing the rounds since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2025-06-28 15:38:22 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-06-28 2:34 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve.
Allegedly.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that this was the
case either!
Funny how some people fixate on Genesis 2 and the creation of
Adam and Eve but completely ignore Genesis 1.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
My issue is... well, one of my many issues is... where was this
god located if he looked like a man? There was no planet Earth
for him to stand on before he created it, so where did he live?
The only sensible conclusion is that he was an alien, meaning we
are created in the image of an alien.
Some native people have the mythical belief origin story that humans
were brought to or came to Earth from somewhere else. Like the Bible,
it's pure nonsense when it comes to fully formed humans suddenly
appearing ... but there are theories that life on Earth was started by >microbe material deposited here by asteroids, either passing / crashing
into Earth, or by material coming to Earth from another planet in the
solar system after they were hit.
Plus, if he created mankind [meaning the human race collectively]
in his own image, why does half of mankind have a cock and the
other half a vagina? Did this alien god have both?
I have mentioned these issues many times, yet our resident
expert on Christianity is unable to give me a sensible
explanation or a counter-argument to my conclusions.
No ribs, no mud, no DNA. So which myth is the correct myth?
The only spare ribs that matter are the ones that come in the
foil container coated in that tasty red Chinese sauce.
Yes binky, they are myths, stories that attempt to explain how
mankind came to be on earth.
Stories to explain how mankind came to Earth before science
taught us a heck of a lot more than the people back then were
aware of. But just stories at the end of the day and not meant
to be taken 100% literally in 2025 by seemingly educated people.
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:^^^^^<-PAedophile talekr noted
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bulls*t, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the Ottomans. >Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 03:28, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the >>>>>> original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he met decades earlier so >>>> we can assume it was doing the rounds since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy. >>
such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
On 28/06/2025 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
I think you will find that Moses is recorded in Egyptian inscriptions as
a governor of Cush which corresponds to the description of him given in
the Book of Jasher. He is also recorded as a tyrant called Ammosis
ruling over Egypt at the same time by Diodorus Siculus who was ousted by >Merneptah (Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae/aka. Tithonus) and
Proteus (Setnakte), and is recorded by Manetho as quoted by Josephus as
a tyrant ousted by Amenophis (Merneptah ie. (Mer)amun-phi(r)mae), his
son Seti II Ramase, and Proteus the king of Aethiopia (as given in the >Aethipian kings list) in the 19th year of Merneptah's reign, ie. 1193 BC >which is the year of the Exodus (as given in the Bible with a baseline
error of +/- 2.5 years) and also the first year of the Trojan War both
of which events are confirmed by the Inscription of Merneptah which
refers to the destruction of the seed of Israel and of the
Tukrians/Trojans who invaded Egypt with Paris (Herodotus Book 2) and
backed up by the Inscription of Ramses III the son of Setnakte which are
the sources used by Herodotus in his Histories to confirm the same
events and the invasion of Egypt by Achaeans and Teukirans led by
Menelaus and Teucer 8 years after Troy was captured, also referred to be >Euripides.
The Moses who governed Cush may or many not have been the same Moses who >tyrannised Egypt, but it makes no difference since the Bible story
originates from all the above sources combined and treats both Moseses
as one person. There is also an inscription from the reign of Merneptah
which mentions the plagues of God inflicted on Egypt in the time of
Moses as described in the Bible.
By-the-way, the God of Moses names himself in the Bible as "On" or The
One ('I Am Who I Am' is a bad translation of the Greek/Hebrew) which
means he's Setnakte who's name means The One which is why the Greeks
called him Ktes or Proteus according to Diodorus. If you read the Bible
you will learn that On the God of Moses turns on the Israelites within
months of the Exodus and kills everyone over the age of 20 (40 winters
and summers) with pestilence and disease so that they will never see the >promised land.
Also the Biblical Judges Jerubbaal (ie. Gideon) and Abimelech are
confirmed by Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon as having existed
(namely Hirombalaus priest of Jehovah and Abibalus king of Berytus).
Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian kings mentioned in the Bible are not
under dispute, not are the majority of the kings of Israel and Judea who
are testified to archaeologically.
Noah is confirmed by Josephus and Eusebius as being the same person as
Ogygus king of Athens and Scythia and Jannus king of Italy which means
the Biblical Flood is the same event as the Ogygian Deluge which dates
to 1628 BC exactly (+/- 6 years based on dendrochronology). Just add up
the biblical generations before Moses counting 25 years per generation
which is what they average and you will get to within 20 or 30 years of
that date. The Argive Chronology of Diodorus also gives the same date
for the Ogygian Deluge.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 03:28, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>>>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the
origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the >>>>>>> original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed. >>>>> Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he met decades earlier so >>>>> we can assume it was doing the rounds since at least 450 BC
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.
such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
1193 BC +/- 2.5 years is the date the Bible gives. If Manetho is used
the date is 1193 BC exactly assuming Ramses II's reign ended in 1212 BC.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
In article <xn0p7l6ulbkvdfk002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The only person that says weird things here is YOU!!!
#atheismissatanism #atheismisfalenews
In article <103oqkh$sbo1$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!! ;-P
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs as
you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because your
bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you to do
what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement to what
you have been told. The only fake thing here is your religion...
but it is a good industry for lining the pockets of church elders
and getting access to under-age children. That seems to me to be
it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two could
mate and have children with the female that had been split away
from his body... anyone believing in that stuff should be locked
up for their own safety.
Retcon the Timeless Child!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of shit, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
In article <xn0p7l6rebkqrpe001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of s*t, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
Key word: Lagre.
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist untilsuch is history.
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece
and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from
the side of Adam because Adam was parted in two to make
Eve. Originally Adam and Eve were one. Read Aristophanes'
speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the origin of the
Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis
story, it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical
canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place. The
story already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was
even composed. Socrates knew of the story from an old woman he
met decades earlier so we can assume it was doing the rounds
since at least 450 BC
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
You get an A+ for getting our annual Summer Religion Class back
on topic for RADW.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7l6ulbkvdfk002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The only person that says weird things here is YOU!!!
#atheismissatanism #atheismisfalenews
BREAKING NEWS: Atheists don't believe in Satan.
And I suspect they don't know what falenews is either...
Clearly you know as much about atheism as you do about
Christianity... i.e. not a lot!!!
Some native people have the mythical belief origin story that humans
were brought to or came to Earth from somewhere else. Like the Bible,
it's pure nonsense when it comes to fully formed humans suddenly
appearing ... but there are theories that life on Earth was started by microbe material deposited here by asteroids, either passing / crashing
into Earth, or by material coming to Earth from another planet in the
solar system after they were hit.
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've READ!!
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of s*(t, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
--
Daniel70
On 29/06/2025 12:44 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <103oqkh$sbo1$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!! ;-P
Atheism is #fakenews.
With that response you show the limitations of your beliefs as
you and your Christian fundamentalist ilk cannot logically
counter any rational argument atheists put forward beyond
quoting from a book of fiction written hundreds of years ago.
You are unable to make reasonable counter-arguments because your
bible is not rational so your stupidity only allows you to do
what simple sheep do... and that's bleat in agreement to what
you have been told. The only fake thing here is your religion...
but it is a good industry for lining the pockets of church elders
and getting access to under-age children. That seems to me to be
it's two main purposes.
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two could
mate and have children with the female that had been split away
from his body... anyone believing in that stuff should be locked
up for their own safety.
Retcon the Timeless Child!
And Binky shows his (non-existant) Vast amount of "Doctor Who" knowledge!!
--
Daniel70
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed >WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
--
Daniel70
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist untilsuch is history.
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece
and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
--
Daniel70
On 29/06/2025 8:06 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Some native people have the mythical belief origin story that humans
were brought to or came to Earth from somewhere else. Like the Bible,
it's pure nonsense when it comes to fully formed humans suddenly
appearing ... but there are theories that life on Earth was started by
microbe material deposited here by asteroids, either passing / crashing
into Earth, or by material coming to Earth from another planet in the
solar system after they were hit.
Picky!! Picky!! I know but .....
Asteroids are bits of Rock, floating around in Space. Sometimes they hit
each other which could send an Asteroid heading towards Earth .... where
it might enter the Atmosphere and become a Meteor .... and, if those
Meteors are large enough to not burn up in the Atmosphere, they hit The >Earth's surface, where they become Meteorites.
Asteroids .... out there in Space
Meteors ...... up there in the Atmosphere
Meteorites ... down there in the Dirt.
--
Daniel70
In article <103q1hd$15d1p$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
I think you will find that Moses is recorded in Egyptian inscriptions as
a governor of Cush which corresponds to the description of him given in
the Book of Jasher. He is also recorded as a tyrant called Ammosis
ruling over Egypt at the same time by Diodorus Siculus who was ousted by
Merneptah (Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae/aka. Tithonus) and
Proteus (Setnakte), and is recorded by Manetho as quoted by Josephus as
a tyrant ousted by Amenophis (Merneptah ie. (Mer)amun-phi(r)mae), his
son Seti II Ramase, and Proteus the king of Aethiopia (as given in the
Aethipian kings list) in the 19th year of Merneptah's reign, ie. 1193 BC
which is the year of the Exodus (as given in the Bible with a baseline
error of +/- 2.5 years) and also the first year of the Trojan War both
of which events are confirmed by the Inscription of Merneptah which
refers to the destruction of the seed of Israel and of the
Tukrians/Trojans who invaded Egypt with Paris (Herodotus Book 2) and
backed up by the Inscription of Ramses III the son of Setnakte which are
the sources used by Herodotus in his Histories to confirm the same
events and the invasion of Egypt by Achaeans and Teukirans led by
Menelaus and Teucer 8 years after Troy was captured, also referred to be
Euripides.
The Moses who governed Cush may or many not have been the same Moses who
tyrannised Egypt, but it makes no difference since the Bible story
originates from all the above sources combined and treats both Moseses
as one person. There is also an inscription from the reign of Merneptah
which mentions the plagues of God inflicted on Egypt in the time of
Moses as described in the Bible.
By-the-way, the God of Moses names himself in the Bible as "On" or The
One ('I Am Who I Am' is a bad translation of the Greek/Hebrew) which
means he's Setnakte who's name means The One which is why the Greeks
called him Ktes or Proteus according to Diodorus. If you read the Bible
you will learn that On the God of Moses turns on the Israelites within
months of the Exodus and kills everyone over the age of 20 (40 winters
and summers) with pestilence and disease so that they will never see the
promised land.
Also the Biblical Judges Jerubbaal (ie. Gideon) and Abimelech are
confirmed by Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon as having existed
(namely Hirombalaus priest of Jehovah and Abibalus king of Berytus).
Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian kings mentioned in the Bible are not
under dispute, not are the majority of the kings of Israel and Judea who
are testified to archaeologically.
Noah is confirmed by Josephus and Eusebius as being the same person as
Ogygus king of Athens and Scythia and Jannus king of Italy which means
the Biblical Flood is the same event as the Ogygian Deluge which dates
to 1628 BC exactly (+/- 6 years based on dendrochronology). Just add up
the biblical generations before Moses counting 25 years per generation
which is what they average and you will get to within 20 or 30 years of
that date. The Argive Chronology of Diodorus also gives the same date
for the Ogygian Deluge.
YN is just another RTD.
In article <103r6ai$1fvl4$4@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've READ!!
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of s*(t, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
--
Daniel70
You have not seen a bi-regeneration Dannyboy?
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:ety.
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can
bi-regenerate!!
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of shit,
created by a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of
writing a decent story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a
way of trying to entertain his audience... but as we can
see, he failed and a large percentage of his audience has
disappeared.
That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've READ!!
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his
birth, like 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after
Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
WHAT?? How about the Genesis that featured Phil Collins, Mike
Rutherford, Tony Banks, Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett??
You get an A+ for getting our annual Summer Religion Class
back on topic for RADW.
So I'll take it right BACK off topic!! ;-P
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his
birth, like 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after
Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even so
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part of the
story!
On 29/06/2025 15:47, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even
so I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part
of the story!
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of the
story.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? How about the Genesis that featured Phil Collins,
Mike Rutherford, Tony Banks, Peter Gabriel and Steve
Hackett??
It's "Genesis of the Daleks", featuring Tom Baker ... no
other Genesis counts. You are just trying to lead me to
your land of confusion.
He’s leading me there too, and I can’t dance.
On 29/06/2025 02:51, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103q1hd$15d1p$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
I think you will find that Moses is recorded in Egyptian inscriptions as >>> a governor of Cush which corresponds to the description of him given in
the Book of Jasher. He is also recorded as a tyrant called Ammosis
ruling over Egypt at the same time by Diodorus Siculus who was ousted by >>> Merneptah (Binere-meramun Merneptah-hotphi(r)mae/aka. Tithonus) and
Proteus (Setnakte), and is recorded by Manetho as quoted by Josephus as
a tyrant ousted by Amenophis (Merneptah ie. (Mer)amun-phi(r)mae), his
son Seti II Ramase, and Proteus the king of Aethiopia (as given in the
Aethipian kings list) in the 19th year of Merneptah's reign, ie. 1193 BC >>> which is the year of the Exodus (as given in the Bible with a baseline
error of +/- 2.5 years) and also the first year of the Trojan War both
of which events are confirmed by the Inscription of Merneptah which
refers to the destruction of the seed of Israel and of the
Tukrians/Trojans who invaded Egypt with Paris (Herodotus Book 2) and
backed up by the Inscription of Ramses III the son of Setnakte which are >>> the sources used by Herodotus in his Histories to confirm the same
events and the invasion of Egypt by Achaeans and Teukirans led by
Menelaus and Teucer 8 years after Troy was captured, also referred to be >>> Euripides.
The Moses who governed Cush may or many not have been the same Moses who >>> tyrannised Egypt, but it makes no difference since the Bible story
originates from all the above sources combined and treats both Moseses
as one person. There is also an inscription from the reign of Merneptah
which mentions the plagues of God inflicted on Egypt in the time of
Moses as described in the Bible.
By-the-way, the God of Moses names himself in the Bible as "On" or The
One ('I Am Who I Am' is a bad translation of the Greek/Hebrew) which
means he's Setnakte who's name means The One which is why the Greeks
called him Ktes or Proteus according to Diodorus. If you read the Bible
you will learn that On the God of Moses turns on the Israelites within
months of the Exodus and kills everyone over the age of 20 (40 winters
and summers) with pestilence and disease so that they will never see the >>> promised land.
Also the Biblical Judges Jerubbaal (ie. Gideon) and Abimelech are
confirmed by Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon as having existed
(namely Hirombalaus priest of Jehovah and Abibalus king of Berytus).
Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian kings mentioned in the Bible are not
under dispute, not are the majority of the kings of Israel and Judea who >>> are testified to archaeologically.
Noah is confirmed by Josephus and Eusebius as being the same person as
Ogygus king of Athens and Scythia and Jannus king of Italy which means
the Biblical Flood is the same event as the Ogygian Deluge which dates
to 1628 BC exactly (+/- 6 years based on dendrochronology). Just add up
Namely the Thera Eruption.
the biblical generations before Moses counting 25 years per generation
which is what they average and you will get to within 20 or 30 years of
that date. The Argive Chronology of Diodorus also gives the same date
for the Ogygian Deluge.
YN is just another RTD.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 29/06/2025 10:05 pm, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <103r6ai$1fvl4$4@dont-email.me>,Oh!! Haven't I, Binky??
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've READ!!
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can bi-regenerate!!
Even a retard with an IQ of ten knows that women were not
created from the side of a man or that a man split in two
could mate and have children with the female that had been
split away from his body... anyone believing in that stuff
should be locked up for their own safety.
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of s*(t, created by
a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of writing a decent
story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a way of trying to
entertain his audience... but as we can see, he failed and a
large percentage of his audience has disappeared.
--
Daniel70
You have not seen a bi-regeneration Dannyboy?
When did the bi-regeneration occur??
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:ety.That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've READ!!
Ah, but you'll believe that 'The Doctor' can
bi-regenerate!!
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of shit,
created by a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of
writing a decent story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a
way of trying to entertain his audience... but as we can
see, he failed and a large percentage of his audience has
disappeared.
YMMV... but on the whole I genuinely thought bi-generation was a
stupid idea, as was creating another TARDIS by the bang of a
hammer. Yes, I know the target audience of "Doctor Who" might be
younger than my age but for me it went a bit silly (or sillier)
with stuff like that. I mean, why does every showrunner feel the
need to change "Doctor Who" lore to make an impact? What's wrong
with just telling a good story with what you have?
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his
birth, like 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after
Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even so
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part of the
story!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
WHAT?? How about the Genesis that featured Phil Collins, Mike
Rutherford, Tony Banks, Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett??
It's "Genesis of the Daleks", featuring Tom Baker ... no other
Genesis counts. You are just trying to lead me to your land of
confusion.
You get an A+ for getting our annual Summer Religion ClassSo I'll take it right BACK off topic!! ;-P
back on topic for RADW.
As usual!
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed
WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and truly >wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the Egyptian >chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a tyrannical ruler
of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by Merneptah, Seti II, and
Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and Manetho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah
"Merneptah's successor, Seti II, was a son of Queen Isetnofret. However,
Seti II's accession to the throne was not unchallenged: a rival king
named Amenmesse, who was either another son of Merneptah by Takhat or,
much less likely, of Ramesses II, seized control of Upper Egypt and Kush >during the middle of the reign of Seti II. Only after he overcame
Amenmesse, was Seti able to reassert his authority over Thebes in his
fifth year. It is possible that before seizing Upper Egypt, Amenmesse
had been known as Messuy and had been viceroy of Kush."
Amenmesse = Messuy = Ammosis = Moses !
The fifth year of Seti II is 1195/4 BC or 1194/3 BC depending on where
you place the end of the reign of Ramses II (either 1212 or 1213 BC)
This date corresponds to the year of the Exodus as given in the Bible
itself and the start of the siege of Troy by the Achaeans (Ekwesh) who
as described by Herodotus invaded Egypt in 1203/2 BC and were along with
the Trojans (Teresh) ousted by Merneptah (or Proteus in Herodotus' account).
According to the Bible the Exodus occurs after the the deaths of the
Egyptian first born. Seti II who according to Manetho is Merneptah's
only son dies in 1193 BC. And there you have the date of the Exodus once >again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seti_II
Ramses II 1279-1213/12 BC
Merneptah (Tithonus) 1213/12-1203 BC or 1213/12-1193 BC according to Manetho
Amenemsse (Moses) 1201-1198 BC or 1206-1193 BC over Lower Egypt
according to Manetho and 1192 to 1172 BC over the Wilderness/Cannan
according to the Bible.
Seti II (Memnon or Emathion) 1203-1197 BC or 1193-1183/2 BC according to >Manetho and Homer if Memnon
Merneptah Siptah (Emathion or Memnon) 1197-1191 BC or 1193-1183/2 BC >according to Manetho and Homer if Memnon
Twosret 1191-1189 or 1188-1182 BC according to Manetho
Setnakte (Ktes (the one), Proteus, On, I Am Who I Am, the God of Moses) >1189-1186 or 1203 (or earlier)-1175 BC according to Herodotus and
Euripides or 1181-1165 according to the Aethiopian kings list
Ramses III c.1186-1155 or 1182-1151 according to Herodotus, Apollodorus
and Homer
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 29/06/2025 15:47, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his
birth, like 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after
Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even so
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part of the
story!
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of the story. It's
not the Red Sea that was parted it was the Reed Sea, ie. Yam Suph in the >biblical Hebrew text which means Reed Sea.
We know from Egyptian inscriptions, Diodorus Siculus and Manetho that
Moses was Amenmesse = Messuy = Ammosis.
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text which >predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly named as
On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he was Ktes = >Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly all bullshit
so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
So it is quite conceivable that Setnakte helped Amenmesse to leave Egypt >voluntarily by parting the Reed Sea for him so he could cross into Canaan.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 15:47, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even
so I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part
of the story!
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of the
story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone for
'unreliable translator' as you know full well most history
books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take it up with
them!
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 28/06/2025 6:35 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
WHAT?? How about the Genesis that featured Phil Collins, Mike
Rutherford, Tony Banks, Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett??
It's "Genesis of the Daleks", featuring Tom Baker ... no other
Genesis counts. You are just trying to lead me to your land of
confusion.
He’s leading me there too, and I can’t dance.
--
solar penguin
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? How about the Genesis that featured Phil Collins,
Mike Rutherford, Tony Banks, Peter Gabriel and Steve
Hackett??
It's "Genesis of the Daleks", featuring Tom Baker ... no
other Genesis counts. You are just trying to lead me to
your land of confusion.
He’s leading me there too, and I can’t dance.
Me either... so it looks like we can't dance!
That's all I have to say on that subject.
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the Ottomans. >> Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 15:47, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even
so I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part
of the story!
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of the
story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone for
'unreliable translator' as you know full well most history
books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take it up with
them!
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly aThen you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well documented by
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist untilsuch is history.
the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan
War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
On 2025-06-29 11:13:15 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have
existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
The area of course existed, but it wasn't called Greece. The word
"Greece" is thought to have originated in the term "Graes" from about Aristole's era and "Graecia" used by the Romans for the area and people there, but even then it wasn't a country as such, but a group of
independent 'city states'. The word "Greeks" originated from the term "Gaikoi" somewhere around the 300AD.
The earliest people to live in the area are thought to be the
Pelasgians, but little is known about them and they may even have been mythological stories created by other people in surrounding areas. So technically it would perhaps have been called something like "Pelasgia".
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 15:47, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
It also tells you that he summoned god to part the Red Sea
and let the Israelites escape from the Egyptian army... Which
may not be as bonkers as the Adam/Eve 'rib' thing, but even
so I'd tend to go with 'unreliable narrator' for that part
of the story!
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of the
story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone for
'unreliable translator' as you know full well most history
books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take it up with
them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original language.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well documented by
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the basis of Moses can easily be >identified as Amenmesse = Messuy = Ammosis, and the god of Moses names >himself in the Bible as On which means he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte
since the Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as living deities. That's what
all gods were, human kings who were deified by the people they ruled and >their decedents because of all the wonderful things they gave to mankind
as described by Herodotus.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until >>>> the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan >>>> War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, >rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding
a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
On 2025-06-29 11:13:15 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed
WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
The area of course existed, but it wasn't called Greece. The word
"Greece" is thought to have originated in the term "Graes" from about >Aristole's era and "Graecia" used by the Romans for the area and people >there, but even then it wasn't a country as such, but a group of
independent 'city states'. The word "Greeks" originated from the term >"Gaikoi" somewhere around the 300AD.
The earliest people to live in the area are thought to be the
Pelasgians, but little is known about them and they may even have been >mythological stories created by other people in surrounding areas. So >technically it would perhaps have been called something like "Pelasgia".
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
More like set in fast-flowing flood water. ;-)
On 29/06/2025 22:37, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:13:15 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have
existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
The area of course existed, but it wasn't called Greece. The word
It was called Hellas.
"Greece" is thought to have originated in the term "Graes" from about
Aristole's era and "Graecia" used by the Romans for the area and people
there, but even then it wasn't a country as such, but a group of
independent 'city states'. The word "Greeks" originated from the term
"Gaikoi" somewhere around the 300AD.
Gaikoi was a Roman term. The Greeks called themselves Hellenes and the
term existed since at least the time Homer wrote the Iliad (c.930 BC).
Thucydides refers to a common Hellenic body existing since around 700
BCish, probably at least since 776 BC when the Olympic Games were
founded where only Hellenes were allowed to take part.
The earliest people to live in the area are thought to be the
Pelasgians, but little is known about them and they may even have been
mythological stories created by other people in surrounding areas. So
technically it would perhaps have been called something like "Pelasgia".
Pelasgia was the original name for Greece as is confirmed by Herodotus. >Hellenic was a dialect of Pelasgian (or a common root) that gained more >popularity.
Athens doesn't join the Hellenic body until it takes on Aeolian kings in
1127 BC. At the time of the Trojan war the Greeks called themselves
Achaeans.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker note
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian,
rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding
a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
--
solar penguin
On 2025-06-29 11:13:15 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed
WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
The area of course existed, but it wasn't called Greece. The word
"Greece" is thought to have originated in the term "Graes" from about Aristole's era and "Graecia" used by the Romans for the area and people there, but even then it wasn't a country as such, but a group of
independent 'city states'. The word "Greeks" originated from the term "Gaikoi" somewhere around the 300AD.
The earliest people to live in the area are thought to be the
Pelasgians, but little is known about them and they may even have been mythological stories created by other people in surrounding areas. So technically it would perhaps have been called something like "Pelasgia".
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
More like set in fast-flowing flood water. ;-)
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian,
rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding
a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text which predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly named as
On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly all bullshit
so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have
existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and truly wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the Egyptian chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a tyrannical ruler
of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by Merneptah, Seti II, and
Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and Manetho.
In article <103sg1q$1oq5h$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Pelasgia was the original name for Greece as is confirmed by Herodotus.
Hellenic was a dialect of Pelasgian (or a common root) that gained more
popularity.
Athens doesn't join the Hellenic body until it takes on Aeolian kings in
1127 BC. At the time of the Trojan war the Greeks called themselves
Achaeans.
YN needs a real education.
In article <xn0p7mku0czlynz002@post.eweka.nl>,--
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:^^^^^<-PAedophile talker noted.
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
Will wonders never cease??
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
In article <103sbrd$1nr2o$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>, The True Doctor
<agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn'tsuch is history.
exist until the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the
same time as the Trojan War. Long before that the Mycenaeans
arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e.
Christian, rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that
is what the entire Western and business calendar system is based on
anyway. Adding a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change
anything except to appease morons wit nothing better to do.
Clueless as ever YN!
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until >>>> the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan >>>> War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greecesuch is history.
and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, rather
than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the entire
Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding a
pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
On 2025-06-29 23:20:27 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian,
rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding
a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
The problem is that "BCE" means "Before Common Era", but very few people actually know what the silly "common era" actually is.
Plain old "BC" is at least understandable by almost everybody, whether
or not they believe in the mythological Jesus, who wasn't actually born
2025 years ago even according to Biblical scholars.
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the basis
of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse = Messuy =
Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in the Bible as On
which means he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte since the
Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as living deities. That's what
all gods were, human kings who were deified by the people they
ruled and their decedents because of all the wonderful things
they gave to mankind as described by Herodotus.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
In article <xn0p7mohv63kgk4000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
And that may be your downfall!
Atheism is #fakenews.
In article <xn0p7mk4wcylm1q000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of shit,
created by a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of
writing a decent story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a
way of trying to entertain his audience... but as we can
see, he failed and a large percentage of his audience has
disappeared.
READ!!
YMMV... but on the whole I genuinely thought bi-generation
was a stupid idea, as was creating another TARDIS by the
bang of a hammer. Yes, I know the target audience of "Doctor
Who" might be younger than my age but for me it went a bit
silly (or sillier) with stuff like that. I mean, why does
every showrunner feel the need to change "Doctor Who" lore
to make an impact? What's wrong with just telling a good
story with what you have?
RTD is out of ideas .
Daniel70 wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
I wouldn't think so... as it's not mentioned in that either!!!
On 2025-06-29 21:37:09 +0000, Your Name said:
On 2025-06-29 11:13:15 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have existed
WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
The area of course existed, but it wasn't called Greece. The word
"Greece" is thought to have originated in the term "Graes" from about
Aristole's era and "Graecia" used by the Romans for the area and people
there, but even then it wasn't a country as such, but a group of
independent 'city states'. The word "Greeks" originated from the term
"Gaikoi" somewhere around the 300AD.
[BEEP]ing [BEEP] [BEEP] useless auto-(in)correct ... that was supposed
to say "Graeci" not "Gaikoi". :-\
The earliest people to live in the area are thought to be the
Pelasgians, but little is known about them and they may even have been
mythological stories created by other people in surrounding areas. So
technically it would perhaps have been called something like "Pelasgia".
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
More like set in fast-flowing flood water. ;-)
On 30/06/2025 2:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text which
predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly named as
On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he was Ktes =
Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly all bullshit
so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
It is quite conceivable that Moses was "hearing voices", too!!
--
Daniel70
On 30/06/2025 1:53 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my meaning
would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST have
existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway. Religious
nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like 1391BC,
1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and truly
wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the Egyptian
chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a tyrannical ruler
of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by Merneptah, Seti II, and
Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and Manetho.
IF (and that's a big 'IF') Moses was 'a tyrannical ruler of Egypt' how
is he represented in The Bible as a lowly Sheppard, e.g.
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to
the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of the LORD appeared
unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked,
and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-3-4/
So, it might seem, Moses was *NOT* a tyrannical ruler of Egypt but,
instead, a lowly Shepard .... or, even, a lowerly employee of his >Father-in-Law!
--
Daniel70
On 30/06/2025 5:19 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-PAedophile talker noted
In article <xn0p7mku0czlynz002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:^^^^^<-PAedophile talker noted.
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
Will wonders never cease??
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
--
Daniel70
On 30/06/2025 7:39 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:Since first hearing of "BCE" I've always wondered why the PC Crew choose
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until >>>>> the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan >>>>> War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greecesuch is history.
and Troy.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners complain
about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, rather
than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the entire
Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding a
pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
the exact, same, change-over point of Time.
--
Daniel70
On 30/06/2025 5:05 pm, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 23:20:27 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, >>>> rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding >>>> a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
The problem is that "BCE" means "Before Common Era", but very few people
actually know what the silly "common era" actually is.
Plain old "BC" is at least understandable by almost everybody, whether
or not they believe in the mythological Jesus, who wasn't actually born
2025 years ago even according to Biblical scholars.
2029 years ago, last I heard!!
One wonders .... do all the other, non-European, peoples have a Before
and after time frame.
Last I heard, we are in about the year 5,500 according to the Israelites!!
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
I wouldn't think so... as it's not mentioned in that either!!!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Come down of your high horse and take a deep breath...
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the basis
of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse = Messuy =
Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in the Bible as On
which means he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte since the
Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as living deities. That's what
all gods were, human kings who were deified by the people they
ruled and their decedents because of all the wonderful things
they gave to mankind as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times gone
past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods in the
sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly worship.
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo like
gods parting seas for people, or creating females from the side
of a male, immediately show themselves to be gullible fools and
easily led.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7mk4wcylm1q000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 1:10 am, Blueshirt wrote:
That all seems acceptable .... at least from what I've
Actually, I thought bi-generation was a pile of shit,
created by a grown man with a juvenile mind incapable of
writing a decent story so instead resorts to gimmicks as a
way of trying to entertain his audience... but as we can
see, he failed and a large percentage of his audience has
disappeared.
READ!!
YMMV... but on the whole I genuinely thought bi-generation
was a stupid idea, as was creating another TARDIS by the
bang of a hammer. Yes, I know the target audience of "Doctor
Who" might be younger than my age but for me it went a bit
silly (or sillier) with stuff like that. I mean, why does
every showrunner feel the need to change "Doctor Who" lore
to make an impact? What's wrong with just telling a good
story with what you have?
RTD is out of ideas .
Yes Dave, for once I think I have to agree with you...
From what I have seen of "Doctor Who" since 2023, and the return
of David Tennant's Doctor, Donna Noble, Mel, Susan and classic
Who adversaries like The Toymaker, Sutekh and Omega, as well as
Billie Piper... I think RTD being out of ideas is an easy enough
accusation to make.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7mohv63kgk4000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
And that may be your downfall!
It's got me through life okay so far so I can't complain...
I am not so weak minded that I need the crutch of a religion
to get me through my day to day life or feel the need to turn
to a bible for inspiration on how to behave and feel as I make
my way through life towards the endless sleep of nothingness.
If religion works for you... carry on.
Atheism is #fakenews.
Continually saying something like a robot doesn't make it
true...
On 30/06/2025 9:54 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Oh!! You've checked?? (Snicker! Snicker!) ;-)
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
I wouldn't think so... as it's not mentioned in that either!!!
--
Daniel70
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Come down of your high horse and take a deep breath...
No one ever believed they were all powerful. They spent most of theirI don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the basis
of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse = Messuy =
Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in the Bible as On
which means he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte since the
Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as living deities. That's what
all gods were, human kings who were deified by the people they
ruled and their decedents because of all the wonderful things
they gave to mankind as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times gone
past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods in the
sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly worship.
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo likeThey were not the sides of males. Did you bother to read Aristophanes
gods parting seas for people, or creating females from the side
of a male, immediately show themselves to be gullible fools and
easily led.
On 30/06/2025 2:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text
which predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly
named as On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he
was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly
all bullshit so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
It is quite conceivable that Moses was "hearing voices", too!!
On 30/06/2025 1:53 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Of course Moses was before Greece.
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a
twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my
meaning would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST
have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like
1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already
existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and
truly wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the
Egyptian chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a
tyrannical ruler of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by
Merneptah, Seti II, and Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and
Manetho.
IF (and that's a big 'IF') Moses was 'a tyrannical ruler of Egypt' how
is he represented in The Bible as a lowly Sheppard, e.g.
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to
the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of the LORD appeared
unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked,
and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-3-4/No. Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier which is what led to his exile
So, it might seem, Moses was *NOT* a tyrannical ruler of Egypt but,
instead, a lowly Shepard .... or, even, a lowerly employee of his Father-in-Law!
Jesus is not myth !
On 30/06/2025 9:54 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
I wouldn't think so... as it's not mentioned in that
either!!!
Oh!! You've checked?? (Snicker! Snicker!) ;-)
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Come down of your high horse and take a deep breath...
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy compared
to the original text in the original language.
No one ever believed they were all powerful. They spent most of theirI don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any god,
extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the basis
of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse = Messuy =
Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in the Bible as On
which means he was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte since the
Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as living deities. That's what
all gods were, human kings who were deified by the people they
ruled and their decedents because of all the wonderful things
they gave to mankind as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times gone
past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods in the
sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly worship.
time rebelling against their fathers or brothers and fighting and
deposing them, and kept sleeping with women who they were not married to.
They were not the sides of males. Did you bother to read Aristophanes
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo like
gods parting seas for people, or creating females from the side
of a male, immediately show themselves to be gullible fools and
easily led.
speech in Plat's Symposium like I said. There were either male on one
side and female on the other or male-male or female-female by which >Aristophanes also attempts to explain homosexuality.
And I already told you it was the Reed Sea not the Red Sea that was
parted, which can be easily achieved by an otter building a dam. It's
otters that build dams right, not the other redenty things called
beavers? Maybe it's both, either way they're not gods.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 30/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/06/2025 2:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text
which predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly
named as On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he
was Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly
all bullshit so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
It is quite conceivable that Moses was "hearing voices", too!!
No he wasn't. There's nothing in the narrative of Geneses which even
remotely suggests that. Analyse it as literature. Setnakte/On a rival to >Merneptah/Tithonus for the throne of Egypt uses Amenmesse/Moses to >destabilise the government so that he can take the throne for himself by >playing one side against the other. The burning bush is nothing more
than a metaphor for the incense being burned by Setnakte's priests to
keep the insects away. Setnakte's/Proteus's proclivity for burning
incense to ward off insects is described in a scene in Euripides' Helen
(or was it Aristophanes parody of it in The Thesmophoriazusae, maybe both).
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 30/06/2025 12:36, Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/06/2025 1:53 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
Of course Moses was before Greece.And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration. >>>>>>>
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a >>>>>> twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the
Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my
meaning would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST
have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like
1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already
existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and
truly wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the
Egyptian chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a
tyrannical ruler of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by
Merneptah, Seti II, and Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and
Manetho.
IF (and that's a big 'IF') Moses was 'a tyrannical ruler of Egypt' how
is he represented in The Bible as a lowly Sheppard, e.g.
Moses is represented in the Bible as a prince of Egypt who was
discovered in the ruses by the daughter of Pharaoh (Ramses II as
described by Herodotus) and adopted by him as his son.
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to
the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of the LORD appeared
unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked,
and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
This happened after Moses murdered an Egyptian soldier and had to flee
to royal palace. This provides more evidence for Moses being the tyrant >Amenmesse since murdering an Egyptian soldier is a metaphor for Moses >attempting to stage a coup against Ramses II's successor his brother >Merneptah and failing.
No. Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier which is what led to his exile
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-3-4/
So, it might seem, Moses was *NOT* a tyrannical ruler of Egypt but,
instead, a lowly Shepard .... or, even, a lowerly employee of his
Father-in-Law!
and having to tend sheep indicates that he wanted to depose the exiting >government of Egypt and make himself Egypt's sole ruler instead.
Assume this to be a vast heard of sheep that roamed of vast swathes of
land that Moses had custody of which was worth a pretty hefty fortune
and more than enough to buy Moses all the weapons and mercenaries he
needed for a coup and even the governorship of Kush (though if I
remember correctly from the Book of Jasher, I think he might have
obtained that by a political marriage).
Another example of Moses' tyranny are the plagues he inflicted upon
Egypt and the murder of the Egyptian first born including the son of
Pharaoh. Probably Seti II was in power or co-regent by this time and
Ramasse Siptah was the young boy and heir to the throne that he had killed.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7nurze8se4e000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Dave's gone very modern all of a sudden... I wonder if
he's feeling alright?
I mean, BCE isn't used in the KJV is it?
Hmm! Maybe that's why Binky prefers the AKJV Bible!!
I wouldn't think so... as it's not mentioned in that
either!!!
That how did they know what year it was?
It's your bible, you tell me... it's been a good few years
since I burned my hands on a KJV.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7nvcie9gy2g001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
No fiction there.
Of course it's fiction you clown!
Stop being an idiot all your life... worship your god but don't
go through life really believing females were created from the
side of a man... the men in white coats will take you away if
you say that sort of stuff out loud too many times.
In article <103uhq4$29e2d$3@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 30/06/2025 12:36, Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/06/2025 1:53 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
Of course Moses was before Greece.And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration. >>>>>>>>
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a >>>>>>> twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the >>>>>> Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my
meaning would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST
have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like >>>>>> 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already >>>>>> existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and
truly wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the
Egyptian chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a
tyrannical ruler of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by
Merneptah, Seti II, and Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and
Manetho.
IF (and that's a big 'IF') Moses was 'a tyrannical ruler of Egypt' how
is he represented in The Bible as a lowly Sheppard, e.g.
Moses is represented in the Bible as a prince of Egypt who was
discovered in the ruses by the daughter of Pharaoh (Ramses II as
described by Herodotus) and adopted by him as his son.
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to
the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of the LORD appeared
unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked,
and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
This happened after Moses murdered an Egyptian soldier and had to flee
to royal palace. This provides more evidence for Moses being the tyrant
Amenmesse since murdering an Egyptian soldier is a metaphor for Moses
attempting to stage a coup against Ramses II's successor his brother
Merneptah and failing.
No. Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier which is what led to his exile
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-3-4/
So, it might seem, Moses was *NOT* a tyrannical ruler of Egypt but,
instead, a lowly Shepard .... or, even, a lowerly employee of his
Father-in-Law!
and having to tend sheep indicates that he wanted to depose the exiting
government of Egypt and make himself Egypt's sole ruler instead.
Assume this to be a vast heard of sheep that roamed of vast swathes of
land that Moses had custody of which was worth a pretty hefty fortune
and more than enough to buy Moses all the weapons and mercenaries he
needed for a coup and even the governorship of Kush (though if I
remember correctly from the Book of Jasher, I think he might have
obtained that by a political marriage).
Another example of Moses' tyranny are the plagues he inflicted upon
Egypt and the murder of the Egyptian first born including the son of
Pharaoh. Probably Seti II was in power or co-regent by this time and
Ramasse Siptah was the young boy and heir to the throne that he had killed. >>
Well Ramses was unjest to the Jews.
On 30/06/2025 19:57, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103uhq4$29e2d$3@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 30/06/2025 12:36, Daniel70 wrote:
On 30/06/2025 1:53 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 12:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 8:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 13:38:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 28/06/2025 12:28 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
Of course Moses was before Greece.And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact. >>>>>>>>>>And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration. >>>>>>>>>
Bullshit, Binky, Greece was around waaayyyy before Moses was even a >>>>>>>> twinkle in his Father's eye!! (Either One!)
Strictly speaking it depends what you mean by "Greece".
Modern Greece was established in 1830, when it broke away from the >>>>>>> Ottomans.
Ancient Greece began about 4000 years ago (ie. 2000BC)
Neolithic Greece began about 7000 years ago (i.e.5000BC)
Out of those options, I guess the one that falls closest to my
meaning would be 'Neolithic', but Greece (the dirt/soil/land) MUST >>>>>> have existed WAAAAYYY before THAT!!
Moses on the other hand is a myth who never existed anyway.
Religious nutjobs have proclaimed various dates for his birth, like >>>>>>> 1391BC, 1592BC, and 1571BC ... but all after Ancient Greece already >>>>>>> existed.
WHAT?? Moses never existed!! But MY Bible tells me so!! ;-)
Just like all the dates of The Old Testament .... Set in Mud!!
Once again I think you will find out that you are totally well and
truly wrong.
Moses is known from Egyptian inscriptions which concur with the
Egyptian chronology of Diodorus Siculus which names Moses as a
tyrannical ruler of Egypt, namely Ammosis, who was deposed by
Merneptah, Seti II, and Proteus (Setnakte) according to Diodorus and >>>>> Manetho.
IF (and that's a big 'IF') Moses was 'a tyrannical ruler of Egypt' how >>>> is he represented in The Bible as a lowly Sheppard, e.g.
Moses is represented in the Bible as a prince of Egypt who was
discovered in the ruses by the daughter of Pharaoh (Ramses II as
described by Herodotus) and adopted by him as his son.
"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest ofThis happened after Moses murdered an Egyptian soldier and had to flee
Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to >>>> the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2And the angel of the LORD appeared >>>> unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, >>>> and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." >>>
to royal palace. This provides more evidence for Moses being the tyrant
Amenmesse since murdering an Egyptian soldier is a metaphor for Moses
attempting to stage a coup against Ramses II's successor his brother
Merneptah and failing.
No. Moses murdering an Egyptian soldier which is what led to his exile
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-3-4/
So, it might seem, Moses was *NOT* a tyrannical ruler of Egypt but,
instead, a lowly Shepard .... or, even, a lowerly employee of his
Father-in-Law!
and having to tend sheep indicates that he wanted to depose the exiting
government of Egypt and make himself Egypt's sole ruler instead.
Assume this to be a vast heard of sheep that roamed of vast swathes of
land that Moses had custody of which was worth a pretty hefty fortune
and more than enough to buy Moses all the weapons and mercenaries he
needed for a coup and even the governorship of Kush (though if I
remember correctly from the Book of Jasher, I think he might have
obtained that by a political marriage).
Another example of Moses' tyranny are the plagues he inflicted upon
Egypt and the murder of the Egyptian first born including the son of
Pharaoh. Probably Seti II was in power or co-regent by this time and
Ramasse Siptah was the young boy and heir to the throne that he had killed. >>>
Well Ramses was unjest to the Jews.
No he wasn't. It was his successor.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have
gone for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well
most history books, right or wrong, use the term Red
Sea. So take it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy
compared to the original text in the original language.
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any
god, extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the
basis of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse =
Messuy = Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in
the Bible as On which means he was Ktes = Proteus =
Setnakte since the Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as
living deities. That's what all gods were, human kings who
were deified by the people they ruled and their decedents
because of all the wonderful things they gave to mankind
as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times
gone past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods
in the sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly
worship.
No one ever believed they were all powerful.
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
They were not the sides of males. Did you bother to read
Aristophanes speech in Plat's Symposium like I said.
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Only the stupid would think that a translation is
trustworthy compared to the original text in the
original language.
Truth spoken.
The Doctor wrote:
Jesus is not myth !
Correct. I am sure there were plenty of Jewish men going around
various parts of the middle-east two thousand years ago, eating
fish, swimming in the Jordan, riding women (etc.) named Jesus.
It's all the mumbo-jumbo of miracles and telling lies that he's
the son of god, blah blah blah, that the sensible people of this
world have an issue with. The fact there might have been a guy
called Jesus going around telling people to be nice to one
another isn't the issue.
Even Arsenal FC had a Jesus!!!
On 30/06/2025 5:05 pm, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 23:20:27 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, >>>> rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding >>>> a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
The problem is that "BCE" means "Before Common Era", but very few
people actually know what the silly "common era" actually is.
Plain old "BC" is at least understandable by almost everybody, whether
or not they believe in the mythological Jesus, who wasn't actually born
2025 years ago even according to Biblical scholars.
2029 years ago, last I heard!!
One wonders .... do all the other, non-European, peoples have a Before
and after time frame.
Last I heard, we are in about the year 5,500 according to the Israelites!!
On 30/06/2025 2:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text which
predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly named
as On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he was
Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly all
bullshit so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
It is quite conceivable that Moses was "hearing voices", too!!
On 30/06/2025 7:39 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Greece was around since the Paleozoic period. Moses didn't exist until >>>>> the time of the Exodus in around 1200 BC at the same time as the Trojan >>>>> War. Long before that the Mycenaeans arrived and ruled over Greece and Troy.such is history.
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian,
rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding
a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to
appease morons wit nothing better to do.
Since first hearing of "BCE" I've always wondered why the PC Crew
choose the exact, same, change-over point of Time.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have
gone for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well
most history books, right or wrong, use the term Red
Sea. So take it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy
compared to the original text in the original language.
So in other words, the translations are unreliable! <rolls eyes>
Do you spend as much energy on e-mailing the publishers of
bibles and history books pointing out it isn't actually the "Red
Sea" as you do in trying to be argumentative on Usenet?
You might see Usenet as a battleground - I see it as a
playground!
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any
god, extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the
basis of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse =
Messuy = Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in
the Bible as On which means he was Ktes = Proteus =
Setnakte since the Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as
living deities. That's what all gods were, human kings who
were deified by the people they ruled and their decedents
because of all the wonderful things they gave to mankind
as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times
gone past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods
in the sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly
worship.
No one ever believed they were all powerful.
But religious people DO believe their gods are all powerful!
When people's children get sick they pray to god hoping
he/she/it will save their sick child with divine intervention...
then when their child dies, they say god has his reasons/god
works in mysterious ways... (etc.)
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens thought
were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from centuries
past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the general
public who follow an organised religion... or the sort of thing
that was being discussed here.
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
They were not the sides of males. Did you bother to read
Aristophanes speech in Plat's Symposium like I said.
No, but this discussion started about Adam & Eve, and you know
full well what the various English language bibles say about
Eve's creation... regardless of the original texts those bible
translations were based on. You also know the rib thing is a
nonsense... which is what this discussion was [originally]
about. There's probably only one person here who thinks the rib
story is 100% true and he is your mate... the rest of us know
it's just an allegory, or whatever. (I prefer the term
fictitious mumbo jumbo myself.)
You are the only one going on about Aristophanes and I would
suggest if you wish to discuss clever stuff like that you find a
newsgroup with like-minded souls ... I can't speak for the
others here but you might as well be talking Greek as far as I
am concerned!!!
Incidentally, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go to Cyprus for our summer
holiday (Limassol or Paphos)... mid-late September... so make
yourself useful in the next week or two and tell us what are the
places we really need to see.
In article <xn0p7o3phekumoj002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7nvcie9gy2g001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
No fiction there.
Of course it's fiction you clown!
Stop being an idiot all your life... worship your god but don't
go through life really believing females were created from the
side of a man... the men in white coats will take you away if
you say that sort of stuff out loud too many times.
Then prove it is fiction. You Can't!!
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Come down of your high horse and take a deep breath...
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy compared
to the original text in the original language.
Truth spoken.
Well Ramses was unjest to the Jews.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Only the stupid would think that a translation is
trustworthy compared to the original text in the
original language.
Truth spoken.
That may very well be the truth, but your precious KJV is not
the original text in the original language... and a lot of
religious scholars would even go as far as saying that parts of
it are some of the least faithful translations out there!!!
So how do you know that your KJV represents the original texts?
You have no way of knowing if it has been mis-translated or not,
be it deliberately or accidentally, as you cannot read the
original language that is was compiled from. You just blindly
accept... baa baa...
On 2025-06-30 11:54:44 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 30/06/2025 5:05 pm, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-29 23:20:27 +0000, solar penguin said:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-29 11:24:48 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 29/06/2025 00:53, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103pf4o$10ujq$1@dont-email.me>,
BTW 1500 BCE.
WHAT?? YOU, Binky, using 'BCE' rather than 'BC'!!
Will wonders never cease??
"BCE" is the Politically Correcterised nonsense because whiners
complain about "BC" being too religious based / biased (i.e. Christian, >>>>> rather than any other religion or no religion) ... that is what the
entire Western and business calendar system is based on anyway. Adding >>>>> a pointless "E" on the end doesn't actually change anything except to >>>>> appease morons wit nothing better to do.
I first saw BCE in the Virgin NAs, so I always think of it as a
Doctor Who way of writing dates.
Plus it’s fun to say out loud because you get three rhyming
letters instead of just two.
The problem is that "BCE" means "Before Common Era", but very few
people actually know what the silly "common era" actually is.
Plain old "BC" is at least understandable by almost everybody, whether
or not they believe in the mythological Jesus, who wasn't actually born
2025 years ago even according to Biblical scholars.
2029 years ago, last I heard!!
One wonders .... do all the other, non-European, peoples have a Before
and after time frame.
The Chinese use the reigns of the emperor's, so "the Ming Dynasty" for >example. Other asian countries probably have similar systems.
Last I heard, we are in about the year 5,500 according to the Israelites!!
North Korea was using their own calendar system, so our "2024" was
their "Juche 113". Reportedly they have started using the stanard
calendar, so this year they are in "2025".
I wonder what happened to all those birthdays in the 'missing' 1912
years - someone who was 23 last year will be turning 1936 years old
this year! ;-)
On 2025-06-30 11:13:30 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 30/06/2025 2:29 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
We also know from the Septuagint (the oldest extant biblical text which
predates the extant Hebrew) that the god of Moses is explicitly named
as On which means The One (I am who I am) which implies that he was
Ktes = Proteus = Setnakte, since supernatural entities are clearly all
bullshit so he must be a real person to be able to speak to Moses.
It is quite conceivable that Moses was "hearing voices", too!!
Moses supposedly live until he was 120 years old, so it's quite
possible that he had extreme dementia too ... except that he didn't
even exist at all anyway.
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have
gone for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well
most history books, right or wrong, use the term Red
Sea. So take it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy
compared to the original text in the original language.
So in other words, the translations are unreliable! <rolls eyes>
Do you spend as much energy on e-mailing the publishers of
bibles and history books pointing out it isn't actually the "Red
Sea" as you do in trying to be argumentative on Usenet?
What difference is it going to make? They're not going to alter their >translations and I can read the bible in the original Greek which is the >oldest extant language.
You might see Usenet as a battleground - I see it as a
playground!
You should start behaving like and adult not a school child.
I don't care either way as in my opinion it's mainly a
fictitious story anyway... as I do not believe in any
god, extant or extinct.
Then you are an even bigger fool. The Exodus is well
documented by Egyptian inscriptions and historians, the
basis of Moses can easily be identified as Amenmesse =
Messuy = Ammosis, and the god of Moses names himself in
the Bible as On which means he was Ktes = Proteus =
Setnakte since the Pharaohs of Egypt were regarded as
living deities. That's what all gods were, human kings who
were deified by the people they ruled and their decedents
because of all the wonderful things they gave to mankind
as described by Herodotus.
There might be kings called gods by their people in times
gone past, but they were not the all-powerful imaginary gods
in the sky like the sheep of today follow and blindly
worship.
No one ever believed they were all powerful.
But religious people DO believe their gods are all powerful!
Those people are fools. The gods were nothing more than a bunch of mafia >godfathers who took bribes (sacrifices) for favours, on condition that
you had to pledge your total unwavering loyalty to them and their
syndicate and not support any others they were not affiliated with.
When people's children get sick they pray to god hoping
he/she/it will save their sick child with divine intervention...
then when their child dies, they say god has his reasons/god
works in mysterious ways... (etc.)
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens thought
were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from centuries
past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the general
public who follow an organised religion... or the sort of thing
that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining where the
stories originally came from.
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
They were not the sides of males. Did you bother to read
Aristophanes speech in Plat's Symposium like I said.
No, but this discussion started about Adam & Eve, and you know
full well what the various English language bibles say about
The English language translations that say rib are all wrong. That's not
how you make a translation. Even the Greek translation of the Hebrew
reflects the dual meaning of the Hebrew word for side.
Eve's creation... regardless of the original texts those bible
translations were based on. You also know the rib thing is a
nonsense... which is what this discussion was [originally]
about. There's probably only one person here who thinks the rib
story is 100% true and he is your mate... the rest of us know
it's just an allegory, or whatever. (I prefer the term
fictitious mumbo jumbo myself.)
It was never about ribs. It was about sides and I've shown you that the >original source of the story was known to Plato, Aristophanes, and
Socrates.
You are the only one going on about Aristophanes and I would
suggest if you wish to discuss clever stuff like that you find a
newsgroup with like-minded souls ... I can't speak for the
others here but you might as well be talking Greek as far as I
am concerned!!!
How about you show some intelligence and read the study materials I
directed you to instead of rejoicing in remaining stupid.
Incidentally, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go to Cyprus for our summer
holiday (Limassol or Paphos)... mid-late September... so make
yourself useful in the next week or two and tell us what are the
places we really need to see.
Aphrodite's Rock, Aphrodite's Grotto, Paphos Castle (not sure if that is
the official name), The Tombs of the Kings. Limassol is mainly a beach
and club resort, oh, and it has a huge cassino, City of Dreams, biggest
in the whole of Europe.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 1/07/2025 5:01 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <xn0p7o3phekumoj002@post.eweka.nl>,Yes, of course it is fiction that the men in white coats will take you
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p7nvcie9gy2g001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I also say; anyone believing in such fictitious mumbo jumbo
like gods parting seas for people, or creating females from
the side of a male, immediately show themselves to be
gullible fools and easily led.
No fiction there.
Of course it's fiction you clown!
Stop being an idiot all your life... worship your god but don't
go through life really believing females were created from the
side of a man... the men in white coats will take you away if
you say that sort of stuff out loud too many times.
Then prove it is fiction. You Can't!!
away, Binky, ..... I mean they haven't yet, have they!!
On the other hand ... they could be on their way, Binky!!^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
--
Daniel70
On 1/07/2025 4:41 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted ^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 30/06/2025 13:12, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 29/06/2025 18:04, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I'd tend to go with 'unreliable reader' for that part of
the story.
If you were as clever as you claim to be you would have gone
for 'unreliable translator' as you know full well most
history books, right or wrong, use the term Red Sea. So take
it up with them!
I don't need a translator fool! I can read the original
language.
<face palm> Maybe re-read what I typed and understand it...
I wasn't on about YOU - I was on about the people who have
translated the various books that use the term Red Sea!
Come down of your high horse and take a deep breath...
Only the stupid would think that a translation is trustworthy compared
to the original text in the original language.
Truth spoken.
Did YOU, Binky, actually READ and UNDERSTAND what Aggy wrote, Binky??
I'm thinking ..... NOT!!
--
Daniel70
On 1/07/2025 4:41 am, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Only the stupid would think that a translation is
trustworthy compared to the original text in the
original language.
Truth spoken.
Did YOU, Binky, actually READ and UNDERSTAND what Aggy wrote,
Binky??
I'm thinking ..... NOT!!
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Incidentally, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go to Cyprus for our
summer holiday (Limassol or Paphos)... mid-late September...
so make yourself useful in the next week or two and tell us
what are the places we really need to see.
Aphrodite's Rock, Aphrodite's Grotto, Paphos Castle (not sure
if that is the official name), The Tombs of the Kings.
Limassol is mainly a beach and club resort, oh, and it has a
huge cassino, City of Dreams, biggest in the whole of Europe.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Incidentally, Mrs Blueshirt wants to go to Cyprus for our
summer holiday (Limassol or Paphos)... mid-late September...
so make yourself useful in the next week or two and tell us
what are the places we really need to see.
Aphrodite's Rock, Aphrodite's Grotto, Paphos Castle (not sure
if that is the official name), The Tombs of the Kings.
Limassol is mainly a beach and club resort, oh, and it has a
huge cassino, City of Dreams, biggest in the whole of Europe.
I will make a note of them. Thanks.
Daniel70 wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
On 1/07/2025 4:41 am, The Doctor wrote:
In article <103ufhd$29e2d$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Only the stupid would think that a translation is
trustworthy compared to the original text in the
original language.
Truth spoken.
Did YOU, Binky, actually READ and UNDERSTAND what Aggy wrote,
^^^^^<-Paedophile talker notedBinky??
I'm thinking ..... NOT!!
I think I am in agreement...
Or maybe Dave did read it and the meaning of it just went
over his head? Like anything that anyone of a higher
intellect posts here usually does!
Dave is like the guy in the corner that laughs along with
everyone else but doesn't realise that they are actually
laughing at him!!!
The True loon loves lecturing even when his lessons are lousy:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens thought
were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from centuries
past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the general
public who follow an organised religion... or the sort of thing
that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining where
the stories originally came from.
** SNIP **
It was never about ribs. It was about sides and I've shown you that the
original source of the story was known to Plato, Aristophanes, and
Socrates.
That’s a bit misleading. Like I said in my other post, it’s probably
more like the Bible and your Greek guys were drawing on
similar sources and traditions but putting their own unique twists
on the story.
You can’t simply say there’s a direct one-to-one match between
the Greek story and the Biblical one. The differences are as
important as the similarities.
--
solar penguin
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Do you spend as much energy on e-mailing the publishers of
bibles and history books pointing out it isn't actually the
"Red Sea" as you do in trying to be argumentative on Usenet?
What difference is it going to make? They're not going to
alter their translations and I can read the bible in the
original Greek which is the oldest extant language.
It doesn't make much of a difference to me either... I know
bibles are full of dodgy translations and embellishments.
You might see Usenet as a battleground - I see it as a
playground!
You should start behaving like and adult not a school child.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
Life should be fun, not all serious and grumpy about
everything!!!
But religious people DO believe their gods are all powerful!
Those people are fools.
See... we can agree on things!
It's easy if you try.
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens
thought were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from
centuries past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the
general public who follow an organised religion... or the
sort of thing that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining
where the stories originally came from.
I know where they come from. It's the modernisation and
adaptations tacked on to ancient history that I have the
problem with! As in, all the religious mumbo-jumbo.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens thought
were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from centuries
past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the general
public who follow an organised religion... or the sort of thing
that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining where
the stories originally came from.
** SNIP **
It was never about ribs. It was about sides and I've shown you that the
original source of the story was known to Plato, Aristophanes, and
Socrates.
That’s a bit misleading. Like I said in my other post, it’s probably
more like the Bible and your Greek guys were drawing on
similar sources and traditions but putting their own unique twists
on the story.
You can’t simply say there’s a direct one-to-one match between
the Greek story and the Biblical one. The differences are as
important as the similarities.
On 01/07/2025 12:15, solar idiot wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens thought
were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from centuries
past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the general
public who follow an organised religion... or the sort of thing
that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining where
the stories originally came from.
** SNIP **
It was never about ribs. It was about sides and I've shown you that the
original source of the story was known to Plato, Aristophanes, and
Socrates.
That’s a bit misleading. Like I said in my other post, it’s probably
more like the Bible and your Greek guys were drawing on
similar sources and traditions but putting their own unique twists
on the story.
You can’t simply say there’s a direct one-to-one match between
the Greek story and the Biblical one. The differences are as
important as the similarities.
Have you actually bothered to read Plato's Symposium? You obviously have
not. The stories originate from the exact same source which predates >Socrates' birth. Even Socrates accuses Aristophanes of plagiarising the >story.
Men and women were connected like mirror images to each other back to
back as were men and men and women and women, and then they were
separated from their other sides by being cut in half along the axis of >symmetry.
The part attempting to explain homosexuality is the only place were the
Bible story and the story told by Aristophanes differ.
There was never the need for any ribs. The word used in the bible is
SIDE. The Bible also refers to the Gods or Elohim creating the heavens
and the earth etc. in Genesis not God. The Elohim were plural so Adam if
he was made in the image of the Gods was male on one side and female on
the other and then the Elohim separated the side of Adam from the side Eve.
There's also the story of the Biblical Flood of Noah which is an exact >rip-off of the Ogygian Delgue, the Deucalion Flood, the Flood of Manu >Vaivasvata in Hindu tradition, and Flood of Gilgamesh. The common story >existed long before the Bible was written.
And then of course there's the story of Moses which once again was
ripped off from the exact same source as the events surrounding the
Trojan War as described by Herodotus because it's based on an account of
the collapse of the 19th Dynasty after the death of Ramses II when Egypt
was invaded by the Sea Peoples and people from the north including
Israel, the Achaeans, and Trojans who were then all kicked out by
Merneptah (Amenophis/Tithonus), Setnakte (Ktes/Proteus/On/The God of
Moses/I Am Who I Am), and Ramses III (Theoclymenos) the son of Setnakte.
Manetho records the exact same events in his Egyptian History as
Herodotus does in his because they're using the exact same Egyptian >inscriptions. The Bible uses the same sources but embellishes them.
Sea-Peoples and People from the north including Achaeans, Trojans, and >Israelites invaded Egypt in the reign of Merneptah and Amenmesse made
himself tyrant by the end of Merneptah's reign and the start of Seti
II's who probably reigned together after Merneptah fell ill (where
Merneptah is Melol in the Book of Jasher). Setnakhte (Ktes/Proteus) who
is turned into On the God of Moses in Setnakhte also ruled Egypt at
exactly the same time and was a rival to Merneptah and Seti II. Both The >Merneptah Stele and The Harris Papyrus give Merneptah and Setnakhte
credit for expelling these invaders respectively.
Herodotus' version of these events has Paris Alexander invade Egypt and >plunder it while Proteus is ruling and then Menelaus arrives looking for >Helen just after Proteus has kicked Paris out of Egypt and sent him
packing back to Troy allegedly with Helen by his side.
Manetho's version has Moses (Amenmesse) invading Egypt and plundering it
at exactly the same time, displacing Merneptah and Seti II (Amenophis
and his son Seti Rammases) to Aethiopia, and the king of Aethiopia >(Setnakhte) helping them to drive out Moses and the Israelites.
The Bible version portrays Moses (Amenmesse) as a murderer and child
killer who with the help of On (Ktes/Proteus/Setnakhte/I Am That I Am) >tyrannises Egypt with successive plagues including the murder of the
Egyptian first born, forcing Merneptah, the successor to the Pharaoh who >adopted Moses as a child (Ramses II), to set Israel free from captivity. >Within about about a year of this On (the God of Moses) forces Moses to >number all the children of Israel above the age of 10 and On (Setnakhte) >slaughters them all for disobedience.
The Book of Jasher follows the Biblical account but adds extra
information by combining other Egyptian inscriptions with the original
story identifying Moses as Messuy the Governor of Kush. It also seems to
have Meneptah Siptah (Adikam Ahuz) described as a child of about the age
of 10 and as an ugly dwarf ruling Egypt after Merneptah (Melol). (Siptah
had a clubbed foot, was represented in statuary as a dwarf, and dies at
about the age of 16 according to Egyptologists.)
Diodorus names Tithonus (Merneptah) as deposing the tyrant Ammosis from >ruling Egypt and then has Memnon (probably Seti II or maybe Siptah) >succeeding Tithonus followed by Proteus.
Herodotus continues his history after the capture of Troy by having
Menelaus return to Egypt to take revenge of Proteus because he didn't
tell him that Helen was with him in Egypt all the time. Proteus doesn't
like the way Menelaus is behaving and kicks him out of Egypt after
returning Helen.
Euripides says much the same thing as Herodotus and has Teucer
(representing the Trojans based in Cyprus in the Inscription of Ramses
III) arriving in Egypt looking for holy advice on where to found
Salamis. At this time Proteus has just passed away so Theoclymenos
(Ramses III) is the interlocutor.
The Bible at the exact same time has God (Either still Proteus/On or
Ramses III) help Joshua capture Jericho by destroying its walls to the
sound of his trumpets. This once again reflects the expulsion of the >Sea-Peoples and Ramses III's conquest of Canaan in the Inscription of
Ramses III.
Since the Book of Jasher was composed in Roman times and gives an
alternate Roman history to that of Virgil who represents the standard >account, we can assume that the Jews knew full well that the Bible was >manufactured based on the misrepresentation of actual history and was
still been added to from the original historical accounts used to create
it until Julius Caesar burned down the Library of Alexandria which
caused all the alternative histories to be lost.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Do you spend as much energy on e-mailing the publishers of
bibles and history books pointing out it isn't actually the
"Red Sea" as you do in trying to be argumentative on Usenet?
What difference is it going to make? They're not going to
alter their translations and I can read the bible in the
original Greek which is the oldest extant language.
It doesn't make much of a difference to me either... I know
bibles are full of dodgy translations and embellishments.
You might see Usenet as a battleground - I see it as a
playground!
You should start behaving like and adult not a school child.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
Life should be fun, not all serious and grumpy about
everything!!!
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens
thought were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from
centuries past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the
general public who follow an organised religion... or the
sort of thing that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining
where the stories originally came from.
I know where they come from. It's the modernisation and
adaptations tacked on to ancient history that I have the
problem with! As in, all the religious mumbo-jumbo.
On 2025-07-01 10:20:05 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/06/2025 20:23, Blueshirt wrote:
Do you spend as much energy on e-mailing the publishers of
bibles and history books pointing out it isn't actually the
"Red Sea" as you do in trying to be argumentative on Usenet?
What difference is it going to make? They're not going to
alter their translations and I can read the bible in the
original Greek which is the oldest extant language.
It doesn't make much of a difference to me either... I know
bibles are full of dodgy translations and embellishments.
As well as later additions and deletions by the church leaders, and
whatever books that were lost and never found. Plus continuity errors
due to being written by various different people writing in in Hebrew, >ancient Greek, and Aramaic.
Not to mention that the entire thing is simply fictional stories
anyway, no better than Aesop's Fables or Harry Potter.
You might see Usenet as a battleground - I see it as a
playground!
You should start behaving like and adult not a school child.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional.
Life should be fun, not all serious and grumpy about
everything!!!
"I was always taught to respect my elders ... it just keeps getting
harder to find any!"
"We call ourselves Snap, Crackle, and Pop. It used to be because of
what we ate for breakfast as kids ... now it's because of the sound we
make when we get out of bed in the morning."
YOU might be on about ancient kings that their citizens
thought were gods based on the manuscripts you've read from
centuries past, but that is not the thoughts of a lot of the
general public who follow an organised religion... or the
sort of thing that was being discussed here.
What is being discussed here is Genesis and I am explaining
where the stories originally came from.
I know where they come from. It's the modernisation and
adaptations tacked on to ancient history that I have the
problem with! As in, all the religious mumbo-jumbo.
All religions are mumbo-jumbo. :-p
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks, but
not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots that might
work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
--
solar penguin
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks, but
not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots that might
work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
On 4/07/2025 11:37 pm, solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks, but
not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots that might
work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Where would they go??
Numbers of the Daleks
Well, 'they' just keep churning them out, it'd be hard to count!!
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Isn't the Dalek system fairly egalitarian?? .... well, except for those >pretty coloured ones.
Proverbs of the Daleks
The Proverbs would be fairly monosyllabic (Is that the right term??) ... >"Exterminate!!"
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Do they even read??
Acts of the Daleks
Invade!! Exterminate!!
and of courseWHAT?? Did I miss the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks?? >Bugger!!
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
--
Daniel70
Daniel declared:
On 4/07/2025 11:37 pm, solar penguin wrote:
WHAT?? Did I miss the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks??
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
Bugger!!
Don’t worry. It was the same as the other one. You know how
much the Daleks love repeating themselves.
“Dear Corinthians,
“You will be exterminated.
“Yours sincerely,
“The Daleks.”
--
solar penguin
Binky blurted:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <1048lf0$rf18$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks, but
not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots that might
work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
Leviticus of The Daleks
Joshua of the Daleks
Ruth of the Daleks
...
Now you’re just being silly.
--
solar penguin
On 4/07/2025 11:37 pm, solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the
Daleks, but not any of the other books of the Bible. There
are lots that might work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Where would they go??
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks,
but not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots
that might work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
There's only one Genesis that counts... and it featured Tom
Baker and some Daleks.
Strange how they did ‘Genesis’ and Revelation’ of the Daleks,
but not any of the other books of the Bible. There are lots
that might work:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
The True loon lectured:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place.
That depends what you mean by “The Bible”. It isn’t one book
but a collection of many books written at different times and
based on different sources which in turn drew from different
traditions.
There isn’t one single date when it was written.
The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
That might be possible. Genesis is based on three sources: the
E source(Elohist), J source (Jahwist) and P source (Priestly).
And they all drew on earlier traditions and stories.
It’s possible one of them might’ve taken something from the same traditional story that Plato and friends used.
But that still doesn’t mean that Plato’s version of the story is Biblical canon. Genesis also drew on Mesopotamian creation myths like the
Enuma Elish. But that doesn’t make the Mesopotamian versions of
those myths canon. Why should Plato be any different?
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of >>>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve >>>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the >>>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place.
That depends what you mean by “The Bible”. It isn’t one book
but a collection of many books written at different times and
based on different sources which in turn drew from different
traditions.
There isn’t one single date when it was written.
Well obviously the Books of Maccabees were written much later than The >Symposium given that they take place over 200 years later.
The real question is when was the first book of the Bible that was
written written.
Most people have the silly idea that Genesis was written first but maybe
it was written last and Maccabees was written before it.
The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
That might be possible. Genesis is based on three sources: the
E source(Elohist), J source (Jahwist) and P source (Priestly).
And they all drew on earlier traditions and stories.
We know one of the sources was the story of the old woman that Socrates
knew about and accused Aristophanes of plagiarising and there are other >sources which are common to Plato's Timaeus. What you are referring to
are not sources but alternate narratives. There's the main narrative of >Genesis which is the most detailed and has Noah around at the time of
the Flood and then there's an alternate version of Genesis which misses
out most of the details of creation and glosses all over Adam and Eve
while at the same time giving a shorter list of generations to the time
of Noah and missing out all of dates of begetting and not even
mentioning Noah at all but replacing him with 3 other individuals,
Jobel, Jubal, and Thobel. After the Food and generations to Abraham it's
just one narrative. The only variation is The Book of Jasher which is
not part of the Bible. Jasher looks like its drawing upon Roman period >sources of the same history and trying to fit in extra details into
Genesis such as Moses being Governor of Cush. Form Jasher it's clear to
see that they've taken well know Egyptian inscriptions even today and >doctored them to fit the existing narrative of the Pentateuch.
It’s possible one of them might’ve taken something from the same
traditional story that Plato and friends used.
But that still doesn’t mean that Plato’s version of the story is Biblical
canon. Genesis also drew on Mesopotamian creation myths like the
Enuma Elish. But that doesn’t make the Mesopotamian versions of
those myths canon. Why should Plato be any different?
Plato's version is taken from Phoenician texts (the ancient Greeks
didn't have a clue about Mesopotamia) and that's where the Biblical
version comes from too. Some of the Phoenician texts might have been
based on Mesopotamian sources such as Gilgamesh for Noah's Ark, but the >Greeks also use the story of the Ark in the story of the Deukalion
Flood. Even Josephus and Eusebius identified Noah, Ogygus, Deukalion,
and Jannus as being the same person.
Clearly there was a standard Egyptian history from which Manetho's
account, that of Diodorus, that of Herodotus, that of the Bible, and
that of Jasher all come from.
There was similarly a standard history of Syria-Palestine where the
biblical events set there all derive from. This may have been the
histories of Sanchuniathon from which the Judges figures
Jerrubaal/Gideon and Abimelech come from and the Phoenician history of >Menander translated into Greek.
There was also the history of the Hittites, Hurrians, and Mittani which
is the probable source for the descendants of Shem (Shuttarna I) to
Nahor (Naharin) all the way to Jacob. It could also be the source of the >story of Adam and Eve given that Eden is Adana in Turkey and given the
snake and ornamental garden motives is probably Gobekli Tepe.
Ham is probably based on Khamose from Egyptian history.
Japhet is clearly a corruption of Iapetus and Javan is Ion or Jannus and
this is clearly based on chronologies and kings lists that were used by
the Romans and also quoted by Nennius and in the Irish Book of
Invasions. The Roman chronologies come from The Phrygia by Thymaetes as
can be seen in Diodorus histories which demonstrates that this is the
source of Ktesias Chaldanian and European histories and the source of >Psedo-Berosus and Annius de Viterbe and this the source of The Travels
of Noah Into Europe. The Irish Book of Invasions (including the kings of >Scotland (literally Scythia/Scotia), and the Swedish, Nordic, and
British kings before Brutus given by Nennius are probably using the same >Scythian sources used by Herodotus.
For the kingdoms of Israel and Judea there is inscriptional evidence for.
And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change gender during >regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as reality in order to be >believed.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their gender
whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on it counts for
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so it
is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now become part
of "Doctor Who" lore.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their gender
whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on it counts for
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so itNo it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that piece of degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now become part
of "Doctor Who" lore.
On 05/07/2025 11:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on
it counts for
No we have not. That was deranged fan fiction like the moon
hatching into a giant space dragon which flew away with 90% of
it's mass and then with only 10% of its mass remaining in the
broken shell it all came back together within seconds and
looked and weight exactly the same as it did before.
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to be
cannon.
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
Totally deranged fan fiction.
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so
it is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now
become part of "Doctor Who" lore.
No it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that
piece of degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
On 05/07/2025 11:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their gender
whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on it counts for
No we have not. That was deranged fan fiction like the moon hatching
into a giant space dragon which flew away with 90% of it's mass and then
with only 10% of its mass remaining in the broken shell it all came back >together within seconds and looked and weight exactly the same as it did >before.
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to be cannon.
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
Totally deranged fan fiction.
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so itNo it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that piece of >degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now become part
of "Doctor Who" lore.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 05/07/2025 11:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on
it counts for
No we have not. That was deranged fan fiction like the moon
hatching into a giant space dragon which flew away with 90% of
it's mass and then with only 10% of its mass remaining in the
broken shell it all came back together within seconds and
looked and weight exactly the same as it did before.
You really didn't like that episode, did you?!
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to be
cannon.
It can, by you or anyone. As there is no official BBC Doctor Who
canon so you can include or exclude anything you like. (I do.)
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
Totally deranged fan fiction.
I'll stick with stupid idea.
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so
it is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now
become part of "Doctor Who" lore.
No it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that
piece of degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
<rolls eyes>
Just when I thought you were starting to takes things
seriously...
The True Doctor wrote:
On 05/07/2025 11:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on
it counts for
No we have not. That was deranged fan fiction like the moon
hatching into a giant space dragon which flew away with 90% of
it's mass and then with only 10% of its mass remaining in the
broken shell it all came back together within seconds and
looked and weight exactly the same as it did before.
You really didn't like that episode, did you?!
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to be
cannon.
It can, by you or anyone. As there is no official BBC Doctor Who
canon so you can include or exclude anything you like. (I do.)
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
Totally deranged fan fiction.
I'll stick with stupid idea.
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so
it is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now
become part of "Doctor Who" lore.
No it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that
piece of degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
<rolls eyes>
Just when I thought you were starting to takes things
seriously...
On 05/07/2025 15:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to
be cannon.
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
The True Doctor wrote:
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their gender
whilst regenerating on-screen...
so your opinion on it counts for nothing as it has already happened.
We can't unsee it now!
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so it
is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now become part
of "Doctor Who" lore.
On 05/07/2025 15:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 05/07/2025 11:36, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen... so your opinion on
it counts for
No we have not. That was deranged fan fiction like the moon
hatching into a giant space dragon which flew away with 90% of
it's mass and then with only 10% of its mass remaining in the
broken shell it all came back together within seconds and
looked and weight exactly the same as it did before.
You really didn't like that episode, did you?!
nothing as it has already happened. We can't unsee it now!
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to be
cannon.
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
It can, by you or anyone. As there is no official BBC Doctor Who
canon so you can include or exclude anything you like. (I do.)
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
Totally deranged fan fiction.
I'll stick with stupid idea.
It's not canon.
It is not canon.it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so
it is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now
become part of "Doctor Who" lore.
No it has not. Doctor Who had already ended by the time that
piece of degeneration fan fiction was written by RTD on LSD.
<rolls eyes>
Just when I thought you were starting to takes things
seriously...
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 05/07/2025 15:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to
be cannon.
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
On 2025-07-05 10:36:42 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
The True loon lectured:
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during
regeneration.
Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as
reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their gender
whilst regenerating on-screen...
Only because the idiot RTD purposely did it to jump on the Politically >Correct bandagon (as well as appeasing BBC "equality" checklists), so
he lazily hijacked an existing character rather than actually do
something creative like make a brand new character.
RTD Wanted Doctor Who to Move Away from “Very Straight,
Masculine, and Testosterone-y” Sci-Fi
Reflecting on his recent work with Doctor Who, showrunner
Russell T Davies revealed that one of his driving goals
since taking the reins again was to steer the show away
from what he called “very straight, very masculine, very
testosterone-y” science fiction.
<https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-rtd-testosterone-scifi-105852.htm>
so your opinion on it counts for nothing as it has already happened.
We can't unsee it now!
A bit like bi-generation... I think it was a stupid idea but
it's happened and been seen to happen in "The Giggle"... so it
is what it is. Believable fiction or not it has now become part
of "Doctor Who" lore.
On 2025-07-05 10:36:42 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen...
Only because the idiot RTD purposely did it to jump on the
Politically Correct bandagon (as well as appeasing BBC
"equality" checklists), so he lazily hijacked an existing
character rather than actually do something creative like make
a brand new character.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 05/07/2025 15:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to
be cannon.
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Hey!! Be nice!!
On 05/07/2025 15:40, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Everything from Kill The Moon onwards can be considered to
be cannon.
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
And YES, I had noticed Aggy's typo!!
--
Daniel70
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-07-05 10:36:42 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen...
Only because the idiot RTD purposely did it to jump on the
Politically Correct bandagon (as well as appeasing BBC
"equality" checklists), so he lazily hijacked an existing
character rather than actually do something creative like make
a brand new character.
We can blame RTD for a lot of things but he didn't bring the
Time Lord's gender-swapping regenerations into the show. That
was Steven Moffat... who introduced Missy and also gave us the
on-screen regeneration of the General from male to female in
"Hell Bent". Then Chris Chibnall followed it up with Jodie
Whittaker's Doctor.
Although RTD will probably be disappointed that he missed out
on that progressive tick-boxing, but to compensate he did gender
swap Jodie Whittaker's Doctor in to David Tennant. Which funnily
enough, nobody seemed to mind!
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
Hey!! Be nice!!
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-07-05 10:36:42 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen...
Only because the idiot RTD purposely did it to jump on the
Politically Correct bandwagon (as well as appeasing BBC
"equality" checklists), so he lazily hijacked an existing
character rather than actually do something creative like make
a brand new character.
We can blame RTD for a lot of things but he didn't bring the
Time Lord's gender-swapping regenerations into the show. That
was Steven Moffat... who introduced Missy and also gave us the
on-screen regeneration of the General from male to female in
"Hell Bent". Then Chris Chibnall followed it up with Jodie
Whittaker's Doctor.
Although RTD will probably be disappointed that he missed out
on that progressive tick-boxing, but to compensate he did gender
swap Jodie Whittaker's Doctor in to David Tennant. Which funnily
enough, nobody seemed to mind!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Hey!! Be nice!!
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
On 2025-07-06 09:41:44 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-07-05 10:36:42 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change
gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant
as reality in order to be believed.
That opinion is fine if that's what you believe, but it can't
be a fact as we have already seen Time Lords change their
gender whilst regenerating on-screen...
Only because the idiot RTD purposely did it to jump on the
Politically Correct bandwagon (as well as appeasing BBC
"equality" checklists), so he lazily hijacked an existing
character rather than actually do something creative like make
a brand new character.
We can blame RTD for a lot of things but he didn't bring the
Time Lord's gender-swapping regenerations into the show. That
was Steven Moffat... who introduced Missy and also gave us the
on-screen regeneration of the General from male to female in
"Hell Bent". Then Chris Chibnall followed it up with Jodie
Whittaker's Doctor.
Although RTD will probably be disappointed that he missed out
on that progressive tick-boxing, but to compensate he did gender
swap Jodie Whittaker's Doctor in to David Tennant. Which funnily
enough, nobody seemed to mind!
By then nobody with any sense was still bothering to watch the mess
anyway. :-p
Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Hey!! Be nice!!
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
On 7/07/2025 5:59 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Thank you.
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Hey!! Be nice!!
I meant "...can not be considered to be canon."
I knew what you meant! After all, it's only about the 47th
time you have gone on about "Kill The Moon" ... and some of
the seasons that came after it... my memory is not bad enough
yet to forget.
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
--
Daniel70
On 7/07/2025 5:59 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
Hey!! Be nice!!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
Thank you.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/07/2025 5:59 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Thank you.
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hey!! Be nice!!
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
Don't be polite when people use sarcastic humour! Hit
back and say "I didn't put you in my killfile either!"
Nice people get nowhere...
:-)
Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/07/2025 5:59 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Thank you.
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hey!! Be nice!!
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
Don't be polite when people use sarcastic humour! Hit
back and say "I didn't put you in my killfile either!"
Nice people get nowhere...
:-)
On 9/07/2025 3:31 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Ah!! Well, maybe THAT's why no-one listens to me!! ;-P
On 7/07/2025 5:59 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Thank you.
On 6/07/2025 6:23 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Hey!! Be nice!!
I am not Daniel, I ignore typos!
I was being nice!!!
I didn't put you in my killfile with the others did I?! ;-)
Don't be polite when people use sarcastic humour! Hit
back and say "I didn't put you in my killfile either!"
Nice people get nowhere...
:-)
--
Daniel70
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
Kings of the Daleks
Proverbs of the Daleks
Lamentations of the Daleks
Chronicles of the Daleks
Acts of the Daleks
and of course
Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the Daleks
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic? (How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
*all* versions of Christianity.
--
solar penguin
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird. I
mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird. I
mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
On 2025-07-10 14:58:43 +0000, Blueshirt said:
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
Yep, and the Daleks go around trying to exterminate anyone that
doesn't follow their own blinkered belief, just like the so-called
Christians did in the Middle Ages. (Not that any of the other nonsense >religions are any more forgiving either.)
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird. I
mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
It depends on how you define the groupings.
There are 7 or 12 major branches of "Christianity", but there are an >estimated 45,000 (yes, forty-five thousand) 'Christian' beliefs around
the world, each with their own difference slant on what is "true".
There are around 200 different versions in the USA.
There are also seven different major branches of Islam, and again can
be sub-dived to at least 73 different versions.
There are three or four major branches of Judaism, which can be
sub-divided into about 27 different versions.
Of course Islam, Judaism and Christianity are themselves all just
different branches of the same nonsense religious belief.
The asswipe asked:
In article <104ogfe$spvv$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
*all* versions of Christianity.
What about
Matthew of the Daleks?
If you’re going to include proper names, start with Joshua and
continue from there.
--
solar penguin
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
EMPEROR: Those words are blasphemy.
DALEK: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 2: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 3: Do not blaspheme.
EMPEROR: Everything human has been purged. I cultivated pure
and blessed Dalek.
DOCTOR: Since when did the Daleks have a concept of blasphemy?
EMPEROR: I reached into the dirt and made new life. I am the God
of all Daleks!
DALEKS: Worship him. Worship him. Worship him.
DOCTOR: They're insane.
--
solar penguin
The asswipe asserted:^^^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <104phtq$13rv1$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Trying to make out that faithful Daleks are not following the
correct rituals is blasphemy!
EMPEROR: Those words are blasphemy.
DALEK: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 2: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 3: Do not blaspheme.
EMPEROR: Everything human has been purged. I cultivated pure
and blessed Dalek.
DOCTOR: Since when did the Daleks have a concept of blasphemy?
EMPEROR: I reached into the dirt and made new life. I am the
God I of all Daleks!
DALEKS: Worship him. Worship him. Worship him.
DOCTOR: They're insane.
8th Doctor to me.
The eighth Doctor said “You’re insane” to you? Well, he wasn’t >wrong.
However, the script excerpt I quoted was from the ninth Doctor.
--
solar penguin
The asswipe asked:^^^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <104phpg$13qni$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
The asswipe asked:
In article <104ogfe$spvv$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
*all* versions of Christianity.
What about
Matthew of the Daleks?
If you’re going to include proper names, start with Joshua and
continue from there.
What about Judges of the Daleks?
What about it? Judges isn’t a personal name. You don’t get
people called Judges Smith or Judges Brown, do you?
(Anyway, I already said that one.)
--
solar penguin
On 2025-07-10 14:58:43 +0000, Blueshirt said:
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
Yep, and the Daleks go around trying to exterminate anyone that doesn't follow their own blinkered belief, just like the so-called Christians
did in the Middle Ages. (Not that any of the other nonsense religions
are any more forgiving either.)
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird. I
mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
It depends on how you define the groupings.
There are 7 or 12 major branches of "Christianity", but there are an estimated 45,000 (yes, forty-five thousand) 'Christian' beliefs around
the world, each with their own difference slant on what is "true". There
are around 200 different versions in the USA.
There are also seven different major branches of Islam, and again can be sub-dived to at least 73 different versions.
There are three or four major branches of Judaism, which can be
sub-divided into about 27 different versions.
Of course Islam, Judaism and Christianity are themselves all just
different branches of the same nonsense religious belief.
On 11/07/2025 7:03 am, Your Name wrote:^^^^^<-PAedophile talker noted
On 2025-07-10 14:58:43 +0000, Blueshirt said:Gee Whiz!! Religion being discussed in a "Doctor Who" newsgroup .....
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
Exodus of the Daleks
Numbers of the Daleks
Judges of the Daleks
[Snip]
You forgot;
Wisdom of the Daleks.
Sorry, I’ve only just realised… Are you saying the Daleks are
Catholic?
Er... <gulp> do you mean that they're not?
I thought Terry Nation used Christianity as his basis for Daleks?
You know; Davros is like the Pope, the supreme leader. So the
Daleks follow the true religion, as preached by their pontiff.
Whilst the Thals are the prods, rejecting the true word and
thinking their way is the right way.
Yep, and the Daleks go around trying to exterminate anyone that doesn't
follow their own blinkered belief, just like the so-called Christians
did in the Middle Ages. (Not that any of the other nonsense religions
are any more forgiving either.)
(How do they cross themselves with a plunger?)
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
If we're gonna do it... we might as well do it right! ;-)
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird. I
mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
It depends on how you define the groupings.
There are 7 or 12 major branches of "Christianity", but there are an
estimated 45,000 (yes, forty-five thousand) 'Christian' beliefs around
the world, each with their own difference slant on what is "true". There
are around 200 different versions in the USA.
There are also seven different major branches of Islam, and again can be
sub-dived to at least 73 different versions.
There are three or four major branches of Judaism, which can be
sub-divided into about 27 different versions.
Of course Islam, Judaism and Christianity are themselves all just
different branches of the same nonsense religious belief.
Binky must be having conniptions .... which I cannot see cause I've
still got him Kill-Filed!! ;-P Ah!! Bliss!
--
Daniel70
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
How do they cross themselves with a plunger?
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
EMPEROR: Those words are blasphemy.
DALEK: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 2: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 3: Do not blaspheme.
EMPEROR: Everything human has been purged. I cultivated pure
and blessed Dalek.
DOCTOR: Since when did the Daleks have a concept of blasphemy?
EMPEROR: I reached into the dirt and made new life. I am the
God of all Daleks!
DALEKS: Worship him. Worship him. Worship him.
DOCTOR: They're insane.
On 2025-07-10 14:58:43 +0000, Blueshirt said:
solar penguin wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird.
I mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
It depends on how you define the groupings.
The asswipe asked:
In article <104phpg$13qni$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
The asswipe asked:
In article <104ogfe$spvv$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
*all* versions of Christianity.
What about
Matthew of the Daleks?
If you’re going to include proper names, start with Joshua and
continue from there.
What about Judges of the Daleks?
What about it? Judges isn’t a personal name. You don’t get
people called Judges Smith or Judges Brown, do you?
(Anyway, I already said that one.)
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-07-10 14:58:43 +0000, Blueshirt said:
solar penguin wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
all versions of Christianity.
You mean... Christianity has different versions? How weird.
I mean, you either believe in Jewsus or you don't. What
differences could there possibly be?
It depends on how you define the groupings.
I define them all as made-up mumbo jumbo for simple folk to
believe in.
And guess who will object to that statement? The simple folk!
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
solar penguin wrote:
How do they cross themselves with a plunger?
You can't see what the mutants are doing inside their travel
machine! All you are seeing is a casing. Trying to make out
that faithful Daleks are not following the correct rituals is
blasphemy!
EMPEROR: Those words are blasphemy.
DALEK: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 2: Do not blaspheme.
DALEK 3: Do not blaspheme.
EMPEROR: Everything human has been purged. I cultivated pure
and blessed Dalek.
DOCTOR: Since when did the Daleks have a concept of blasphemy?
EMPEROR: I reached into the dirt and made new life. I am the
God of all Daleks!
DALEKS: Worship him. Worship him. Worship him.
DOCTOR: They're insane.
One of the best scenes of the 9th Doctor's era...
If not "Doctor Who" ever!
On 2025-07-11 08:50:12 +0000, solar penguin said:
The asswipe asked:
In article <104phpg$13qni$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
The asswipe asked:
In article <104ogfe$spvv$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
That’s why I tried to keep my choices to books that are in
*all* versions of Christianity.
What about
Matthew of the Daleks?
If you’re going to include proper names, start with Joshua and
continue from there.
What about Judges of the Daleks?
What about it? Judges isn’t a personal name. You don’t get
people called Judges Smith or Judges Brown, do you?
(Anyway, I already said that one.)
"Judges" perhaps not. It depends on local laws around names of babies,
but in some places (mainly USA and UK) there are people with the name
"Judge" as either a forename or a surname. ><https://www.ancestry.com/first-name-meaning/judge>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 170:01:47 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,555 |