Have you read Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible"? or are you familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis at all? Because it sounds like you are redoing a lot of that work. There are at least 4 or 5 sets of authors in the Old Testament and they were scrambled together during the last Jewish exile. This is fairly well accepted, although it is difficult to get scholarly agreement on something so sensitive to so many.to answer your questions. no and no i can prove there were more then 24 writers. just glance at the styles changing in the zip file i posted. it shows at least 20 different changings of just the format style. Friedman's work is a bit out of date, but it is well known, so that's why I asked. It has been expanded on and there may well be scholars who can "prove there were more than 24 writers". It seems like, if you have a hypothesis about who wrote the Bible, you should be aware of the existing hypotheses. Even if you arrived at your conclusions independently, if someone already did that same work, well, you don't get the copyright. I'm not going to evaluate your work and tell you if you repeated someone else's or not, but I'd highly recommend you do that. If you have discovered something, well, congratulations. You should publish it and have people who know about such things look at it. There are some smart people here at CFI, but a discussion forum is not a peer reviewed journal.
virginwarrior, in just going over this thread, you are revealing yourself as one who does NOT know what you are talking about. Why should we bother engaging you on any level?
i copied word for word from the NASB 1988 bible. yet i put those words into a different format. under the copyright laws (which are international) there is one sentence that states one can do this. its the 1st time in the history of the copyrights laws this has been done. when i spoke to copyright lawyer he said i could not have done what i did. he told me he would give me one free hour to look at what is did. he was charging $150 USD an hour at that time. he had 36 yrs in the business. as he read what i did the paper fell from his hands. he looked at me and said. son, this reads as if i were there. then he turned around and grab a book. he read for about 4 minutes. then he told me of this 1 sentence in the law. then he said let me have a few more people review what i done. the next day when i got to his office he said he had 5 copyright lawyers with every one of them with over 30 yrs in the business agreeing that from this one sentence it gave me the copyright law to owning the editing and sell of bible. he also told me there is no one word in any spoken language to say what i did. i contacted NASB's publishing house. they reviewed what i had done and sent me a letter saying good luck to my owning the copyrights to the bible. so yes - ii own the copyright to the bible using word for word of the NASB 1988. over the years i can show with proof the mistakes that run though out the bible. and yes i have the right to change a word to another word just like the other 30+ bible you can buy. the way i change a word is: spoken to telling. he said to He Said. home to house. i not once changed blue to red. and yes no one can used or copy more then a few paragraphs without me releasing a paper to say they can use more of my formatting. that's true for up to 75 yrs since the day i received the copyrights and 50 yrs past my death. i hope this set you straight on what i own and what is legal for what others to do with my bible.no, i own the copyright to the whole bible, the buddhist - diamond sutras - and the 1st chapter of all the books in the jewish tanaka. what they can’t do is use my formatting. john 1:5 calls GOD an itSo what you're saying is that no one is allowed to use your formatting, not that you own the copyright to the bible. Correct? On to John ( whoever he actually was), by god man, you're right! Or does "it" actually refer to the darkness not comprehending the light? It must be the way it's worded. Hard to trust those early scribes and nine hundred years of garbled translations, of course that may be what god wants us to believe. He can sometimes be a duplicitous old coot ya know. Cap't Jack
Have you read Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible"? or are you familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis at all? Because it sounds like you are redoing a lot of that work. There are at least 4 or 5 sets of authors in the Old Testament and they were scrambled together during the last Jewish exile. This is fairly well accepted, although it is difficult to get scholarly agreement on something so sensitive to so many.to answer your questions. no and no i can prove there were more then 24 writers. just glance at the styles changing in the zip file i posted. it shows at least 20 different changings of just the format style. Friedman's work is a bit out of date, but it is well known, so that's why I asked. It has been expanded on and there may well be scholars who can "prove there were more than 24 writers". It seems like, if you have a hypothesis about who wrote the Bible, you should be aware of the existing hypotheses. Even if you arrived at your conclusions independently, if someone already did that same work, well, you don't get the copyright. I'm not going to evaluate your work and tell you if you repeated someone else's or not, but I'd highly recommend you do that. If you have discovered something, well, congratulations. You should publish it and have people who know about such things look at it. There are some smart people here at CFI, but a discussion forum is not a peer reviewed journal. >you should be aware of the existing hypotheses noted and thank you for letting me know. very helpfully >well, you don't get the copyright see the above message as to what i own as copyrights. the different formatting patterns show the different writers. all i ask you was to glance over the zip file i posted. just to see how many times the formatting changes. from just the change formats you can 'see' how many different writers it took to make up the text for revelations. yes your seeing my notes as well when you glancing over the book. but i'm not asking you to inspect the words - just see how many times the formatting changes. it may sock you see how easy it is to see so many writers it did take. what one sees when one looks at all the books. the 1st 5 books of the bible have the best mistake free books out of all the books. it harder to pick out the different writers. but when one just glances over each page to see how many times just by the formatting styles change. there are 100's of writers. >There are some smart people here at CFI it does take smart people to see the different formatting style changing. it might take smart people to read over each paragraph to see how they are constructed so to trust the fact that the changing of the formats do mean there are different writers for each format. what those people will find is how the grouping make small paragraphs. how some are tiny sentences. how most are connect to each other. ex. house , homes . this , . grouping shows how they are connected yet split.
virginwarrior, in just going over this thread, you are revealing yourself as one who does NOT know what you are talking about. Why should we bother engaging you on any level?i hope my resent posts shows you i do own the copyright to the whole bible. then you might what to read over the zip file to tell me. how can it be that the bible can be made to read way faster and with understand using the hidden/found formatting. did read my genesis post? was it not easy to see how the words forum a versing group? i have had publishing houses look over my work to get it published. they want me to hand over the editing rights to them. which means i turned down millions so they don't have editing rights. they don't even want to discuss anything other then them controlling the editing. sorry for the bad english. i had a D+ average coming out of high school. i came from schools where white people were the last minority. when dr. king was killed we had police standing at every door on all 3 levels of my junior school. my buddy at 14 was selling heroin to the teachers at 3 schools. the guys a ran with robbed over 35 stores to raise money to become dealers. i am what i am. i'm not always the smartest guy in the room.
ps. Luke 2:15 calls Jesus "this thing" and the word 'it' could be left out from the text. but i found every bible i could fine had the word 'it' there. the word it can't be found in the hebrew text of the old testament. on the greek side -NT- one can find 1 word to describe a it like word. - itself - is the word that is use to talk about satanno, i own the copyright to the whole bible, the buddhist - diamond sutras - and the 1st chapter of all the books in the jewish tanaka. what they can’t do is use my formatting. john 1:5 calls GOD an itSo what you're saying is that no one is allowed to use your formatting, not that you own the copyright to the bible. Correct? On to John ( whoever he actually was), by god man, you're right! Or does "it" actually refer to the darkness not comprehending the light? It must be the way it's worded. Hard to trust those early scribes and nine hundred years of garbled translations, of course that may be what god wants us to believe. He can sometimes be a duplicitous old coot ya know. Cap't Jack
Me:>well, you don’t get the copyright You:see the above message as to what i own as copyrights.What your one hour of lawyer bought you was a possible law that might apply. I can write anything and put my name and date on it and say "copyright" and it is copyrighted. Now, if someone comes along and says, "yeah but, I already did that", then I have a copyright lawsuit to deal with. That is going to require a lot more than 1 hour of lawyer time. In your case, you're really talking about scholarly work. I'm not sure how that actually works. All I've heard you say is that you have found 25 different formats. Well, other people have identified actual people, or at least groups of people, i.e. scribes in Southern Kingdom, and assigned them to specific "formats". I could really care less, but somebody does. I read Friedmann and was convinced that scholars have shown how the Bible is the work of men, and that's enough for me.
to have copyrights. one only needs to know the law. the law states one must use at the beginning or end the words - 1. the word copyright 2. then a letter c within a circle 3. that persons name and that years date. then that person has the right to go to court to prove if they were the 1st to do so. and no you don't have to file your copyrights with the library of congress unless you want those in the library of congress to search the records for you and receive a library of congress stamp saying they have research the said copyrights and found you are the 1st. yes i have their stamp on my papers. which means the library of congress spent time and effort review and searching the world records to see if any one esle did what i did. i did not did not say i found 25 different formats. i did say that one could glance over the book in the zip file and see the formats changing at least 25 times. it was not just 1 copyright lawyer. i said he had 5 other copyright lawyers review my editing. (i gave them 10 8x11 pieces of paper with text from many different books) that makes 6 lawyers who spent their legal time on my - what every i did the 1988 NASB bible. what about the NASB publishing house? you think a company that's making 10's of millions a year would let some one steal their copyrights. their team of lawyers had to spend the time to examine what i did. like i said, they sent me back a letter saying good luck. >In your case, you're really talking about scholarly work. i never said i did scholarly work. i never said i had any special talent to be the to find the hidden formats. what i did so anyone that puts in a little time and effort could do what i did. and that why i posted so much text in the 1st post. you can copy and paste the words that have no punctuation and work from there. by the way it is legal - under the copyright laws - to post what i posted here. i have no doubt that the bible is a work of men. who do you think made the symbols/letters we as using today? we were not born knowing them. therefore people made them. thus all written text is made by man. i thank you for your comments and good luck to you.Me:>well, you don’t get the copyright You:see the above message as to what i own as copyrights.What your one hour of lawyer bought you was a possible law that might apply. I can write anything and put my name and date on it and say "copyright" and it is copyrighted. Now, if someone comes along and says, "yeah but, I already did that", then I have a copyright lawsuit to deal with. That is going to require a lot more than 1 hour of lawyer time. In your case, you're really talking about scholarly work. I'm not sure how that actually works. All I've heard you say is that you have found 25 different formats. Well, other people have identified actual people, or at least groups of people, i.e. scribes in Southern Kingdom, and assigned them to specific "formats". I could really care less, but somebody does. I read Friedmann and was convinced that scholars have shown how the Bible is the work of men, and that's enough for me.
viginwarrior; I think you are misinterpreting what I’m saying. The numbers you just posted don’t make any difference to what I was saying. The only thing that confuses me a little is that you think the Library of Congress and the publishers of NASB have given your work serious consideration and that it counts as an equivalent to peer review. I can’t confirm or deny or that but I would need more evidence, like you actually publish and get reviewed. I’m not arguing with you that your work has accomplished something. If it is what you think it is, then it seems to have some merit. What I’m talking about is, how it fits into the larger picture of Biblical research. Since you weren’t even aware of the Documentary Hypothesis and have said nothing about working with other scholars, there’s no way for me to know that unless I become a Biblical scholar.
I don’t think there is a problem with anyone taking the words from the Bible and changing them or rearranging them or commenting on them. Unless you are copying someone’s copyrighted commentary or claiming to have discovered something already discovered, I don’t see any issues. Good luck with it.
viginwarrior; I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. The numbers you just posted don't make any difference to what I was saying. The only thing that confuses me a little is that you think the Library of Congress and the publishers of NASB have given your work serious consideration and that it counts as an equivalent to peer review. I can't confirm or deny or that but I would need more evidence, like you actually publish and get reviewed. I'm not arguing with you that your work has accomplished something. If it is what you think it is, then it seems to have some merit. What I'm talking about is, how it fits into the larger picture of Biblical research. Since you weren't even aware of the Documentary Hypothesis and have said nothing about working with other scholars, there's no way for me to know that unless I become a Biblical scholar. I don't think there is a problem with anyone taking the words from the Bible and changing them or rearranging them or commenting on them. Unless you are copying someone's copyrighted commentary or claiming to have discovered something already discovered, I don't see any issues. Good luck with it.i'm sorry i was confused by what you wrote to me. what i meant about the Library of Congress. is that they checked to look for copyrights only. which then gives me the right to publish my work. same with the NASB publishing house. they only checked to see if was legal to me to use their text to publish with out the NASB suing me. as i stated i did take my work to publishing house. they wanted control over the editing in exchange for money. i could not agree with that. i did spend over $20,ooo USD to have some books made into print. then i sent them to 20 newspaper and tv stations. i only had the usa today newspaper call me on the phone wanting more information. we talked about 20 mins. sent them more files over the internet. didn't hear back. what i did find was a small 1 paragraph announcing what was done to the bible. then i spend weeks traveling the country going to colleges. duke, mit brown and many other top schools. i needed permission from their offices to go and talk to the professors. yes they took a good look at what i done. they even said yes your work can be repeated to find the hidden formats. what they also said was they were not willing to put their names in a statement saying what was done is true. no one wanted to put their name on paper because they didn't want their name tied to saying - yes this guy can reveal mistakes and errors in one of the worlds most holy book. mankind is like that. all talk and no action. it seems they like running with the herd. i worked with an atheist who said i just made things up. so i gave him a piece of paper like the text above without the numbers .," etc etc. i said please put a dot where you think the sentence ends. than i took those and sentences and made them the beginning of a new line and said to him please do this again. he handed it back and i edited his findings. handed it back and said now please put a line under each sentence to separate the like words. he came over to me with his face all white. saying i don't want to do this any more. than walked away. i looked at what he done and he did the same as i had done. i did ask him later if he thought anyone could do the same. he just looked at me and walked away. my point being is - it not hard at all to do what i had done. i offered the text in the 1st post for others to see if they could come up with a like pattern. its there for any one to make their try at what i claim they can do. as you know. its better to do and see to make a more correct statement than it is to say i don't believe what your saying. maybe some other people that run this site will take a try at it. in fact i believe they have. what i don't see is them posting what they have found. all i can think is they too like running with the herd. after all, they risk their reputation responding to what has been done to the bible.
what they also said was they were not willing to put their names in a statement saying what was done is true. no one wanted to put their name on paper because they didn’t want their name tied to saying - yes this guy can reveal mistakes and errors in one of the worlds most holy book.Dude, people have been doing that for hundreds of years now. It is what led to the Documentary Hypothesis, it is part of what led to the fundamentalism backlash that we experience today. I find it hard to believe that you could have traveled this much, talked to this many people and not come across someone else who has told you this. Also, there are many theologians doing the same thing to some degree or another. You are starting to sound like someone who is trying to invent a conspiracy where there isn't one.
and sir you are talking without reviewing the zip file i posted. my work is different from all others. my work is based on finding hidden formats. the mistakes speak for them self. so there is no study or book like the zip file i posted for revelations http://www.mediafire.com/download/9q5jqzp4gytl8s1/Revelation_Colored_3-2001.zip here is Daniel http://www.mediafire.com/download/hmb8li8sb4hv7f8/DANIEL_12-00.ziphttp://www.mediafire.com/download/hmb8li8sb4hv7f8/DANIEL_12-00.zip again there is no book or study making the text: 1. easy to read 2. shows the different writers 3. and shows all the mistakes and errors by the way, people that have read and looked these books over. agree with the 3 things i just posted. after all they were professors of major colleges. what gets me is your comments are comments without actually taking the time to review my work. when i read this site and http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ mission statement. "we believe that evidence-based reasoning ....... is critical for modern world civilization." that my friend is why i posted here. "evidence-based reasoning" and reasoning is what i'm looking for. maybe those that host this site might one day find what i'm posting and see "evidence-based reasoning".what they also said was they were not willing to put their names in a statement saying what was done is true. no one wanted to put their name on paper because they didn’t want their name tied to saying - yes this guy can reveal mistakes and errors in one of the worlds most holy book.Dude, people have been doing that for hundreds of years now. It is what led to the Documentary Hypothesis, it is part of what led to the fundamentalism backlash that we experience today. I find it hard to believe that you could have traveled this much, talked to this many people and not come across someone else who has told you this. Also, there are many theologians doing the same thing to some degree or another. You are starting to sound like someone who is trying to invent a conspiracy where there isn't one.
and sir you are talking without reviewing the zip file i posted.I don’t need to read anything more to know that people have been “finding errors in the Bible" for hundreds of years. The first famous one was a Jewish guy, then there were Protestants, theologians all. More recently it has been people who might have started out theistic, but were disillusioned when they really started studying the Bible. This is not controversial history. It may not be well known, but it is known in seminary, it is known in scholarly halls, and it is known if you do a little research yourself. That’s “evidenced based reasoning". You’re asking me to review your work and compare it to all the other work done in this field and rate its ease of reading and what it shows. How could I evaluate if you “show all the errors" if I don’t first know what the set of “all errors" consists of?
why would you need to compare my work to all other work? you might find my work is 'self evident'. it's not really debatable when the text speaks for itself.and sir you are talking without reviewing the zip file i posted.I don’t need to read anything more to know that people have been “finding errors in the Bible" for hundreds of years. The first famous one was a Jewish guy, then there were Protestants, theologians all. More recently it has been people who might have started out theistic, but were disillusioned when they really started studying the Bible. This is not controversial history. It may not be well known, but it is known in seminary, it is known in scholarly halls, and it is known if you do a little research yourself. That’s “evidenced based reasoning". You’re asking me to review your work and compare it to all the other work done in this field and rate its ease of reading and what it shows. How could I evaluate if you “show all the errors" if I don’t first know what the set of “all errors" consists of?
why would you need to compare my work to all other work? you might find my work is 'self evident'. it's not really debatable when the text speaks for itself.Because you make comparative claims. I already agree with your general claim, that the Bible has "mistakes", so what is different about your claims? How do they further the work of those who have already made similar claims?
why would you need to compare my work to all other work? you might find my work is 'self evident'. it's not really debatable when the text speaks for itself.Because you make comparative claims. I already agree with your general claim, that the Bible has "mistakes", so what is different about your claims? How do they further the work of those who have already made similar claim? errors and mistakes! >How do they further the work of those who have already made similar claim? by finding the hidden formats, they explain themselves as to errors, lost endings, words left out, added texts sticks out. it corrects the starting of new chapters. it also shows where new chapters should start. it makes the text the easiest biblical text to read. with the formats changing it shows that there is a different writer adding his words. it shows how the books were pieced together. my work will also help prove or disprove what others have said they have found as errors or writers. ex. if you read either of the books in the zip files. you can see and "read/taste" the different writers. thus there is no argument as to how many writers there were. a whole lot of thing become self evident proof. it is better to print them out. so you can read them without having to scroll as you read. you might want to call it "evidence-based reasoning". most of the time people are looking for a sign from GOD or a sign from a male saying GOD MADE me see HIM. here i am. the message/sign from me. is reading the hidden formats reveal i've changed biblical history as you know it. that's right, all biblical history as it is know today.
Fella, if you don’t know about Friedman, Quelle, probably Bart Ehrman, and others, then please just stop. You’re not qualified to write on the subject.
Folks - Like that other guy who posted images of some crazy theory, I think this guy is just baiting the forum on to get click-thrus to the links he’s included. Then he can get $ for the clicks. Don’t fall for it.
Fella, if you don't know about Friedman, Quelle, probably Bart Ehrman, and others, then please just stop. You're not qualified to write on the subject. Folks - Like that other guy who posted images of some crazy theory, I think this guy is just baiting the forum on to get click-thrus to the links he's included. Then he can get $ for the clicks. Don't fall for it.you come along and post something that just doesn't make since. what does >Friedman, Quelle, probably Bart Ehrman, and others, have to do proving there is hidden formats thought the bible? did you read over my work? - if not, how do you know what i'm even posting about to make a comment like that? that said let me go to this statement >You're not qualified to write on the subject. i didn't write nothing, i used word for word in order to show the hidden formats. to say i'm not qualified to write is just laughable. i copied word for word in order. then to say i want you to click on the links i posted. that's laughable too. like there are hundreds of people here clicking away. instead of just posting to post 'something'. try to pay attention to the words i'm saying and the proof i'm posting. so far this site seems to have only a peanut gallery.
you come along and post something that just doesn’t make since.Actually, it does. The sources and the names he points to are sources and names which anybody who is genuinely well versed in academic/technical Biblical scholarship should know. YOU obviously do not know about any of this and even worse, don't even seem to care. You've taken your own "work" for authoritative and it's nothing of the kind. This much renders you unworthwhile to listen to or even engage anymore. Am I being harsh? You're damned right I am. When I see some evidence that you've done your homework and actually know what you're talking about, I might consider engaging you. Since it's going to be months if not years before you achieve that much, I think I'm pretty much done here. And so are you.
Fella, if you don't know about Friedman, Quelle, probably Bart Ehrman, and others, then please just stop. You're not qualified to write on the subject. Folks - Like that other guy who posted images of some crazy theory, I think this guy is just baiting the forum on to get click-thrus to the links he's included. Then he can get $ for the clicks. Don't fall for it.you come along and post something that just doesn't make since. what does >Friedman, Quelle, probably Bart Ehrman, and others, have to do proving there is hidden formats thought the bible? did you read over my work? - if not, how do you know what i'm even posting about to make a comment like that? that said let me go to this statement >You're not qualified to write on the subject. i didn't write nothing, i used word for word in order to show the hidden formats. to say i'm not qualified to write is just laughable. i copied word for word in order. then to say i want you to click on the links i posted. that's laughable too. like there are hundreds of people here clicking away. instead of just posting to post 'something'. try to pay attention to the words i'm saying and the proof i'm posting. so far this site seems to have only a peanut gallery.Yes I did read a little of your post. For starters, your English is horrible. That's not a crime by any means, but if you're going to be doing textual analyses of any kind, you'd better be an expert in the language of your subject. BUT...the real language of your subject isn't English, so you're doubly off base. Biblical scholars know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. so that they can get to the source of their analysis. Short of that you're just playing word games, nothing more. That said, if you're not just posting to attract click thrus, then maybe you are serious about Biblical Textual analysis. If so, stop these silly posts, do your research, then try to contribute in a small and humble way in the appropriate forum.