it been taught over and over different ways for more years than i know before Christ and even before creation
thanks
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Roy welcome to my thread... It is unfortunate that it seems you feel the need to belittle what I have said here.
I did not go into your thread and do that to your ideas.
Also I disagree with you... My ideas here are not "nothing new"...
I don't read or hear anything similar in any of your posts that even remotely resembles what I have just discussed here.
Also, if I were to go into 90% of the churches of ANY religion and declare that God was zero I would get the exact same reaction that I "initially" got here a great big, HUH? And the believers here in this forum are likely the most studied probably on the planet.
Does it make you feel elevated or something to say what I am discussing is "not new"? It is kind of a cheap shot.
Also the fact that you have stated that zero is no different than any other number demonstrates that you simply don't get it.
As long as you devalue the ideal you will overlook its importance.
Didn't I write earlier that someone would come in and say, "I knew this all along".
I do find that you see born again as being zero interesting and worthy of comment. There is hope for you but the rest of your post makes no sense and simply derails the topic..
FIRST, zero is unlike any other numeral because it is the only numeral without value. Something you failed to mention. This makes zero unique among all numbers. Just as the sun is the seed of all physical elements...(another thing you did not mention) Only the sun has the power of nuclear fission. This fission creates the weights and values of all other elements. You also you didn't mention the spiritual significance of pi which was used to build the pyramids... another worthy footnote. So if you have been teaching zero for years well, where? In your future posts here I would prefer if you simply add to the conversation rather than stating how unimportant this discussions is in your mind. That does not get us any farther along the way. It is really not polite to go into someone's post and tell everyone how unimportant it is and then blow them a holy kiss.
It is kinda fake and "insincere"...
Oh well... In our culture we see numbers viewed as static, nonspiritual, lifeless and well "not new"... but in ancient cultures numbers and geometry were living entities. Very few understand this today... The very shape of the pyramids were seen as gateways to the afterlife (most people know at least that). I am not saying you don't understand this Roy but you have not really demonstrated clearly that you do understand it fully, yet... Just as the alphabet were hieroglyphs and not dead lifeless symbols as our numerals and alphabet are. You might have mentioned that rather than belittling our numerals. These hieroglyphs were all sacred in their own right. They were a source of profound spirituality.
Just as the wind is parallel to zero and the holy spirit, it is unseen, seemingly has no matter but to the enlightened the effects of the wind can smooth a rock over many hundreds if not thousands of years but to us it is just the wind... Yes one can learn from a smooth rock. Nothing new there either? Light was the incarnate word of God and not something you just paid the monthly utility bill to obtain. ...That is the problem with our society that nothing is sacred anymore, not the earth, the sun, the sea, the sky and air closer than our breath that we thoughtlessly pollute with smog and chemicals. Mother earth is no longer a goddess but simply a lifeless rock floating in empty space. Yet to the ancients the wind was the holy spirit of the living God of creation.
So you can go on thinking that these thoughts are nothing new and remain oblivious to the fact that we as a culture have lost the meaning of life and traded it for a remote control to a cable TV box while the ancients would stare endlessly at the circular seed of learning in the night sky and hear the voice of zero speak to them.
What is being "born from above" but being born from the story of the zodiac (the zero "seed" in the sky) God's own celestial drama in the heavens and no remote is needed, one needs only but to look up at night. AND... when Jesus was being born the magi who journeyed "from the east" they remembered zero where the world at the time had purely forgotten. Even Jesus' own people were oblivious to the meaning of zero... and you are telling me our pop culture knows "God is zero" today? I doubt it seriously...
Let the magi be a reminder to you the next time you decide to go into another person's thread and proclaim that what they are discussing is "nothing new".
This is new and we have only just begun to unravel the mysteries that have been covered by the sands of time.
It is what in euclidean geometry is called substitution. If a = b and b = c then c = a
Zero is the seed
The seed is the word.
The word is God
God is love
Therefore, love is zero.
Even within this logic is a perfect circle. (circular logic)
I asked for a reference, not a deduction.
What is wrong with a deduction? Is God not logical or did God forget how to count?
Are humans smarter than God?
[What's wrong with a deduction is that some people don't know how
to use mathematical proofs correctly.
One such example is above, where zero ended up "= God."
Another example, equally "valid" and equally incorrect,
would be:
"God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, by commutativity, where things equal to the same thing
are equal to each other,
Ray Charles is God."
And dodging the issue with non-answers doesn't change that.
"Are humans smarter than God?" "Did God forget how to count?"]
As for the scripture references I already gave them in previous postings in this thread. God left some information for us to deduct so take that up with God if you don't like using your head. :) "I didn't write the book."
[They were based on your erroneous assumption-
based entirely on an error of Hislop's plus your own assumptions-
that "zero" in English is in any way connected to the Hebrew
word "zera" or "seed" simply because the words are spelled almost
the same.
Heck, in Aramaic, the words for "camel" and "rope" are virtually
identical in spelling and are unrelated in concept,
as are Samaritan and devil, which is worth a separate discussion,
I suppose.
In English, the words "chump" and "champ" are unrelated,
as are "descent" and "decent" and "desert" and "dessert."
"Pain" in English is an ache, "pain" in French means bread.
So, all you've got is your own suppositions and some mental
sleight-of-hand to make "zero" appear where it had nothing to do
with what's there, either in word or concept,
and fobbing off criticism with "it's hidden so only the elite
can find it."
It's a lot like saying "lack of evidence is proof that the
conspiracy is working."
There's no evidence to support your claims?
"Take that up with God."
No, I take that up with the person making the bald assertions.
God was minding his own business when someone decided to slap
His name on a pet theory to give it the illusion of credibility.]
Considering the bible does not contain the word zero because zero had not yet been discovered, well, the bible also does not directly mention the name of God... so does that mean God does not exist either? Or is Gods name Zero?
[The Bible directly mentions the name of God. The name given BY God as
a name would be transliterated YHWH. Its exact pronunciation is up for
discussion. It is a consistent error of the English language Bibles that
YHWH is consistently rendered "LORD" (and rarely "GOD") rather than as
YHWH. However, don't blame the author-the Hebrew that the English Bibles
are supposed to be taken from contain "YHWH" in all the correct spots.
It appears thousands of times in the Torah/Old Testament. If you pick up
a Concordance and flip to "LORD", you'll see a comprehensive listing of how
often and when. Your English Bible at least makes it noticeable by
rendering it "LORD" rather than "Lord".
God said they'd know him as YHWH- WHEN ASKED.
God never said His name was "Zero" (or even "ZERO".)
For the curious, YHWH BEGINS appearing in Genesis 4, and Eve is the first
one recorded as using it. ("I have gotten a man from the LORD.")]
Deuteronomy 30:6 KJV
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed [zero], to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Comment: Circumcision contains the word "circle" and relates to zero and seed.
Psalms 69:36 KJV
The seed [zero] also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love his name shall dwell therein.
[There's STILL no connection between the Hebrew "zera" and the English "zero."
Hislop consistently made the error of making assertions of the connections
between things without documenting them.
(He claimed "Tammuz" was supposedly the "son" of "Nimrod" and "Semirammis".
However, there's no connection between "Tammuz" and either of them
other than Hislop saying "they're connected.")
Someone who swallows his assertions without checking them might be prone
to making their own bald assertions and just SUPPOSING they are correct.]
I/m not a mathematician . . but I believe anything divided by zero is undefined
When division is explained at the elementary arithmetic level, it is often considered as a description of dividing a set of objects into equal parts. As an example, consider having ten apples, and these apples are to be distributed equally to five people at a table. Each person would receive 10/5 = 2 apples. Similarly, if there are 10 apples, and only one person at the table, that person would receive 10/1 = 10 apples.
So for dividing by zero – what is the number of apples that each person receives when 10 apples are fairly distributed amongst 0 people? Certain words can be pinpointed in the question to highlight the problem. The problem with this question is the "when". There is no way to distribute 10 apples amongst 0 people. In mathematical jargon, a set of 10 items cannot be partitioned into 0 subsets. So 10/0, at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined.
Similar problems occur if we have 0 apples and 0 people, but this time the problem is in the phrase "the number". A partition is possible (of a set with 0 elements into 0 parts), but since the partition has 0 parts, vacuously every set in our partition has a given number of elements, be it 0, 2, 5, or 1000. If there are, say, 5 apples and 2 people, the problem is in the word "fairly". In any partition of a 5-set into 2 parts, one of the parts of the partition will have more elements than the other.
In all of the above three cases, 10/0, 0/0, and 5/2, one is asked to consider an impossible situation before deciding what the answer will be, and that is why the operations are undefined in these cases.
On the one hand, we have resources that are respected by competent educators
and genuine students of the English language. (That's resourceS in the plural.)
On the other hand, we have one resource noted for inventing the associations
between things when it suited him, who contradicts them.
What is more trustworthy? Where is the weight of the evidence?
Can it be any more obvious?]
WordWolf you are apparently vastly ignorant of the mystery system and its dual nature and if you want to go on kidding yourself with providing shoddy logic and wearing blindfolds be my guest.
Hislop did not only jump from language to language with just the word zero but he showed time and again with MANY OTHER words which also are contained in religious systems. Even in remote places "like Easter isle" similar words could be found connected to similar deities. These pagans religions fit together like a hand in a glove... So it is not just the word zero but may interconnected strata. Connections like the days of the week are pronounced similar in nearly every country, major deities and month names are derivatives of one another... WHY? Because they are all PAGAN... Not only the names are similar but also the myths are nearly identical and practice. With them their pantheons are attributed with, giving secret knowledge to early humans as fire, confounders of the wise, Two faced "heroes", a flood story, fortifiers, zero's as crowns for kings, circular regal rings representing zero (and "the seed"), halos, sun worship, also the sun as the beginning of time (let there be light), fertility gods and goddesses, and let's not forget thier common use of baptism, the trinity, pagan festivals are also too strikingly similar to not be connected. Now you can insult Hislop but ultimately that only leaves you unenlightened to what others secretively perceive.
Names like regal, rex, ra, rey, eric, heinrich, enrique, (and many more) all meaning king in their respective languages.
And, not all love is blind... Only impetuous love.
Are both God and Ray Charles impetuous? Your proof has easily been shot down for its holes. But you could not use the Bible to shoot down my proof why? because the Bible supports it too thoroughly.
You state a faulty proof and you must compare it with many checks and balances to support it. Many Hundreds of scriptures back up my proof as REASONS and what supports your proof? NOTHING but your silly rhetorical rational. Your rational is like saying because the sky is blue today it is always blue. Well a proof needs to stand up to more scrutiny than one days observation. My proof stands up with many reasons presented in the word and numerous other sources...
Just consider what "cipher" means... it means, a key that unlocks understanding. How does that relate to zero. Just as zero is the key that unlocks all numbers and value. As also Jesus held up the mustard seed as a "cipher" that unlocked wisdom and understanding, a seed of wisdom a "kernel of truth"... Cipher means seed also... So yes a seed is also a cipher and out of the seed grows the offspring of the knowledge and understanding. This simply obliterates further your assertion that seed (zera) is not zero... One kernel of truth can open many locked conundrums.
When you see nothing in zero beyond an empty value thus you will in turn reap the fruitless conclusions that you sow.
omni present zero, full circle.
Proverbs 8:27 KJV
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Comment: A compass draws a circle which is the seed of all geometry...
Also WordWolf have you ever heard an Arabic person pronounce the word cipher? Well I have... Cipher is pronounced "seephra"...
Well it is nearly identical in pronunciation to the word zera.
One half of zero is zero, one third of zero is zero, one forth of zero is zero, one fifth of zero is also zero, zero divided by one hundred is one hundred hundredths of zero and that still equals zero, and so on. You can't divide zero by a whole number and end up in the positive or negative.
Zero divided by nothing leave nothing.
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
If you subtract zero from zero you get zero.
If you subtract a positive or negative number from zero you go deeper in the hole. Simple grammar school logic.
When division is explained at the elementary arithmetic level, it is often considered as a description of dividing a set of objects into equal parts. As an example, consider having ten apples, and these apples are to be distributed equally to five people at a table. Each person would receive 10/5 = 2 apples. Similarly, if there are 10 apples, and only one person at the table, that person would receive 10/1 = 10 apples.
So for dividing by zero – what is the number of apples that each person receives when 10 apples are fairly distributed amongst 0 people? Certain words can be pinpointed in the question to highlight the problem. The problem with this question is the "when". There is no way to distribute 10 apples amongst 0 people. In mathematical jargon, a set of 10 items cannot be partitioned into 0 subsets. So 10/0, at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined.
Similar problems occur if we have 0 apples and 0 people, but this time the problem is in the phrase "the number". A partition is possible (of a set with 0 elements into 0 parts), but since the partition has 0 parts, vacuously every set in our partition has a given number of elements, be it 0, 2, 5, or 1000. If there are, say, 5 apples and 2 people, the problem is in the word "fairly". In any partition of a 5-set into 2 parts, one of the parts of the partition will have more elements than the other.
In all of the above three cases, 10/0, 0/0, and 5/2, one is asked to consider an impossible situation before deciding what the answer will be, and that is why the operations are undefined in these cases.
Ten divided by zero = ten (or ten tenths) you are certainly not going to end up with one less or one more apple by dividing it by zero. The number ten is based upon ten single values in a set of ten. One assumes if there is no value to divide ten it defaults to 1 or else ten would be x instead. When one uses the word ten it is already divided by one. We would assumes someone is doing the dividing, say "an observer". This is also because zero can also be considered as one in some rare instances. Only X divided by zero is undefined. You define and divide ten when you invoke the word ten.
1604, from It. zero, from M.L. zephirum, from Arabic sifr "cipher," translation of Skt. sunya-m "empty place, desert, naught" (see cipher)
It is interesting to note that the word zero also means desert. It gives insight into why Jesus went into the desert to fast. Fasting is zero physical nourishment. Jesus went to zero to cipher God's "still small voice". Only in the desert or at zero was Jesus able to communicate with the spirits. It is ironic that in a barren place as the desert that wisdom is obtained. That zero is the bringer of truth. The serpent in Genesis was also the bringer of knowledge as snakes are also indigenous to desert places. This is where Jesus himself was tempted. We can then understand that that temptation was related to the seed of the true God. That barren places (an invisible God) and out of zero is born new life from the seed of truth.
Thus the desert is zero and zero is the seed of wisdom and truth. The new birth must also be a desert implanted within so that the holy spirit can communicate to the heart. In this desert fasting from the extraneous noise and bustle of life we are enabled to hear the still small voice of zero as the seed of the word of God.
Also,
teh translation of Skt. sunya-m
The sun, "sunya-m" the circle of time is the bringer of truth in the desert as the sun is the seed of all life on earth. As the sun is prevalent in the desert and is also the harbinger of death. And as the earth encircles the sun, life is within the circle. The sun of the desert may also give insight as to why water was used in baptism. Also mana was life giving wisdom obtained in the desert through the seed of a barren landscape. The wisdom of zero is nourishment to the soul. Zero gives insight into why Jesus turned water into wine and consumed the wine so that the seed of zero was impregnated. For before water baptism was external and did not pierce the circumference of zero. Also why bread is often made into circular cakes in remembrance of zero and the mana of the desert (zero) or "bread of life". That baptism in the new testament can be represented as a line drawn from outside the perimeter of the circle into the center of the circle.
The desert seems perched exactly between life and death as zero is perched between the positive and negative numbers. As zero is perched between what is seen and unseen as paganism is a worshiping of what is seen and the God of the bible is in the realm of what is unseen. Thus the desert as being barren is a place of communing with zero as the unseen God.
As the serpent tempted Jesus to worship the seen world over the unseen God. To worship the creation one over the invisible creator zero. Jesus was temped three times to worship serpents, flying birds and hoofed creatures and even the visible sun over zero. As zero symbolizes a circular perimeter drawn around an empty space thus we receive the seed of an invisible God.
In this temptation the seed of zero is revealed and postulated even further.
Ten divided by zero = ten (or ten tenths) you are certainly not going to end up with one less or one more apple by dividing it by zero. The number ten is based upon ten single values in a set of ten. One assumes if there is no value to divide ten it defaults to 1 or else ten would be x instead.
Your logic seems to be a tad bit lacking there. the inverse of division is multiplication. by your logic if one has zero sets of ten apples he really has 10 apples. in reality if a person has 1 set of ten apples he has ten apples.
the zero in ten is just a place holder. all it means is there are no "1"'s. Just as in if you add 1 to 99 you don't wind up with two zeroes and a one. the zeroes are just place holders meaning there are zilch, nada, none of those units we call tens and zilch, nada, none of those units we call ones.
Your logic seems to be a tad bit lacking there. the inverse of division is multiplication. by your logic if one has zero sets of ten apples he really has 10 apples. in reality if a person has 1 set of ten apples he has ten apples.
the zero in ten is just a place holder. all it means is there are no "1"'s. Just as in if you add 1 to 99 you don't wind up with two zeroes and a one. the zeroes are just place holders meaning there are zilch, nada, none of those units we call tens and zilch, nada, none of those units we call ones.
Division is not always the inverse of multiplication when you factor in zero. That is why I said only zero has the ability to "create" no other number can create.
Zero giveth and zero taketh away.
zero divided by ten is zero, ten divided by zero is 10.
Dividing ten apples by zero is not going to make them vanish. Whatever the answer after dividing ten by zero you will still have ten apples.
Such contortions of logic are amazing. ten apples given to ten people equally each one gets one. ten apples given to no people or zero people. now how many apples do each of the non-existent people have??? zero by definition means nothing, zilch,nada,empty,the opposite of something.I have 10 chairs and 0 rooms how many chairs goes in each room? what rooms??????!!!! there aren't any!!!!!!
10 divided by 1 is 10 and if 10 divided by 0 is ten; then 0 is the same as one.
One finds in English old English there old and Middle English and new English so words change meaning over time. So you tell me my friend does it mean what today.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
26
118
Popular Days
Jan 24
19
Jan 17
18
Jan 27
14
Jan 28
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 16 posts
year2027 19 posts
waysider 26 posts
DrWearWord 118 posts
Popular Days
Jan 24 2010
19 posts
Jan 17 2010
18 posts
Jan 27 2010
14 posts
Jan 28 2010
11 posts
Popular Posts
DrWearWord
The Cult Of Zero (An alternative explanation of existence.) This is my own attempt to explain existence and give of myself to the powers that be. Why a cult? Well all systems of faith start out as re
DrWearWord
What are you all talking about? :) When one speaks in tongues privately there is no interpreter... While we were being instructed in PFAL to speak in tongues we all just spoke out loud together. If
DrWearWord
Carte blanche
year2027
God first
hi DrWearWord
zero is same word as born again
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
because born again means conceive from above
you see you a interesting way to put things but nothing new
we have many stages in life
until we become a God
from Atheism to God from Christian to God we are in many stages of life
we travel life in our way
from 3 - 0 or from 0 - 3
or from 10 - 28 or 7 - 38
the number means nothing other than our minds
thanks
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi DrWearWord
i been thinking zero when I had ideals like zero
on Dale Sides board when I posted as "Sides2027"
i decide to count the sun as part with planets
or how when I saw the beginning as another period of time
in an old teaching "patters in Genesis " or "the Gap theory"
http://year2027bibletimeline.wetpaint.com/page/No+Gap+theory
zero is nothing new not even to me
it been taught over and over different ways for more years than i know before Christ and even before creation
thanks
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Roy welcome to my thread... It is unfortunate that it seems you feel the need to belittle what I have said here.
I did not go into your thread and do that to your ideas.
Also I disagree with you... My ideas here are not "nothing new"...
I don't read or hear anything similar in any of your posts that even remotely resembles what I have just discussed here.
Also, if I were to go into 90% of the churches of ANY religion and declare that God was zero I would get the exact same reaction that I "initially" got here a great big, HUH? And the believers here in this forum are likely the most studied probably on the planet.
Does it make you feel elevated or something to say what I am discussing is "not new"? It is kind of a cheap shot.
Also the fact that you have stated that zero is no different than any other number demonstrates that you simply don't get it.
As long as you devalue the ideal you will overlook its importance.
Didn't I write earlier that someone would come in and say, "I knew this all along".
I do find that you see born again as being zero interesting and worthy of comment. There is hope for you but the rest of your post makes no sense and simply derails the topic..
FIRST, zero is unlike any other numeral because it is the only numeral without value. Something you failed to mention. This makes zero unique among all numbers. Just as the sun is the seed of all physical elements...(another thing you did not mention) Only the sun has the power of nuclear fission. This fission creates the weights and values of all other elements. You also you didn't mention the spiritual significance of pi which was used to build the pyramids... another worthy footnote. So if you have been teaching zero for years well, where? In your future posts here I would prefer if you simply add to the conversation rather than stating how unimportant this discussions is in your mind. That does not get us any farther along the way. It is really not polite to go into someone's post and tell everyone how unimportant it is and then blow them a holy kiss.
It is kinda fake and "insincere"...
Oh well... In our culture we see numbers viewed as static, nonspiritual, lifeless and well "not new"... but in ancient cultures numbers and geometry were living entities. Very few understand this today... The very shape of the pyramids were seen as gateways to the afterlife (most people know at least that). I am not saying you don't understand this Roy but you have not really demonstrated clearly that you do understand it fully, yet... Just as the alphabet were hieroglyphs and not dead lifeless symbols as our numerals and alphabet are. You might have mentioned that rather than belittling our numerals. These hieroglyphs were all sacred in their own right. They were a source of profound spirituality.
Just as the wind is parallel to zero and the holy spirit, it is unseen, seemingly has no matter but to the enlightened the effects of the wind can smooth a rock over many hundreds if not thousands of years but to us it is just the wind... Yes one can learn from a smooth rock. Nothing new there either? Light was the incarnate word of God and not something you just paid the monthly utility bill to obtain. ...That is the problem with our society that nothing is sacred anymore, not the earth, the sun, the sea, the sky and air closer than our breath that we thoughtlessly pollute with smog and chemicals. Mother earth is no longer a goddess but simply a lifeless rock floating in empty space. Yet to the ancients the wind was the holy spirit of the living God of creation.
So you can go on thinking that these thoughts are nothing new and remain oblivious to the fact that we as a culture have lost the meaning of life and traded it for a remote control to a cable TV box while the ancients would stare endlessly at the circular seed of learning in the night sky and hear the voice of zero speak to them.
What is being "born from above" but being born from the story of the zodiac (the zero "seed" in the sky) God's own celestial drama in the heavens and no remote is needed, one needs only but to look up at night. AND... when Jesus was being born the magi who journeyed "from the east" they remembered zero where the world at the time had purely forgotten. Even Jesus' own people were oblivious to the meaning of zero... and you are telling me our pop culture knows "God is zero" today? I doubt it seriously...
Let the magi be a reminder to you the next time you decide to go into another person's thread and proclaim that what they are discussing is "nothing new".
This is new and we have only just begun to unravel the mysteries that have been covered by the sands of time.
Oneness with zero Roy
There is one zero. :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The History of Zero
Our name "zero" derives ultimately from the Arabic sifr which also gives us the word "cipher".
... the mathematical conception of zero ... was also present in the spiritual form from 17 000 years back in India.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[What's wrong with a deduction is that some people don't know how
to use mathematical proofs correctly.
One such example is above, where zero ended up "= God."
Another example, equally "valid" and equally incorrect,
would be:
"God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, by commutativity, where things equal to the same thing
are equal to each other,
Ray Charles is God."
And dodging the issue with non-answers doesn't change that.
"Are humans smarter than God?" "Did God forget how to count?"]
[They were based on your erroneous assumption-
based entirely on an error of Hislop's plus your own assumptions-
that "zero" in English is in any way connected to the Hebrew
word "zera" or "seed" simply because the words are spelled almost
the same.
Heck, in Aramaic, the words for "camel" and "rope" are virtually
identical in spelling and are unrelated in concept,
as are Samaritan and devil, which is worth a separate discussion,
I suppose.
In English, the words "chump" and "champ" are unrelated,
as are "descent" and "decent" and "desert" and "dessert."
"Pain" in English is an ache, "pain" in French means bread.
So, all you've got is your own suppositions and some mental
sleight-of-hand to make "zero" appear where it had nothing to do
with what's there, either in word or concept,
and fobbing off criticism with "it's hidden so only the elite
can find it."
It's a lot like saying "lack of evidence is proof that the
conspiracy is working."
There's no evidence to support your claims?
"Take that up with God."
No, I take that up with the person making the bald assertions.
God was minding his own business when someone decided to slap
His name on a pet theory to give it the illusion of credibility.]
[The Bible directly mentions the name of God. The name given BY God as
a name would be transliterated YHWH. Its exact pronunciation is up for
discussion. It is a consistent error of the English language Bibles that
YHWH is consistently rendered "LORD" (and rarely "GOD") rather than as
YHWH. However, don't blame the author-the Hebrew that the English Bibles
are supposed to be taken from contain "YHWH" in all the correct spots.
It appears thousands of times in the Torah/Old Testament. If you pick up
a Concordance and flip to "LORD", you'll see a comprehensive listing of how
often and when. Your English Bible at least makes it noticeable by
rendering it "LORD" rather than "Lord".
God said they'd know him as YHWH- WHEN ASKED.
God never said His name was "Zero" (or even "ZERO".)
For the curious, YHWH BEGINS appearing in Genesis 4, and Eve is the first
one recorded as using it. ("I have gotten a man from the LORD.")]
[There's STILL no connection between the Hebrew "zera" and the English "zero."
Hislop consistently made the error of making assertions of the connections
between things without documenting them.
(He claimed "Tammuz" was supposedly the "son" of "Nimrod" and "Semirammis".
However, there's no connection between "Tammuz" and either of them
other than Hislop saying "they're connected.")
Someone who swallows his assertions without checking them might be prone
to making their own bald assertions and just SUPPOSING they are correct.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[it's sad that "Dr" WearWord's education so neglected to teach him the value of a good
dictionary. Myself, I was taught that a good, "COLLEGIATE" dictionary would serve me well
for the rest of my life. (I was taught that in Junior High School.) Both the
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language were recommended as excellent resources that any (EVERY) person should own
(one or the other, as suited their purpose.) I got both. When I quoted one, I flipped
to an entry and read from it.
Anyone with a more COMPLETE education should be familiar with at least their names,
and the uses of a collegiate dictionary. They give the correct spelling of a word, its pronunciation,
its uses, and its origins (and does other things as well, but these are the primary function
of collegiate dictionaries.)
As it turns out, the internet age has given us the ability to read their entries for
ourselves, if one doesn't have a copy at home and doesn't want to visit a library to
check one.
The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary's website:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero
"Etymology: French or Italian; French zéro, from Italian zero, from Medieval Latin zephirum, from Arabic ṣifr"
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language's website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zero
"[italian, from alteration of Medieval Latin zephirum, from Arabic á¹£ifr, nothing, cipher; see cipher.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. "
Just for fun, here's what the Online Etymology Dictionary said for the same entry
(a resource specializing in word origins.)
"zero
1604, from It. zero, from M.L. zephirum, from Arabic sifr "cipher," translation of Skt. sunya-m "empty place, desert, naught" (see cipher)" (Ibid.)
It also gives its own link to the history of the derivation.
http://www.etymonline.com/zero.php
On the one hand, we have resources that are respected by competent educators
and genuine students of the English language. (That's resourceS in the plural.)
On the other hand, we have one resource noted for inventing the associations
between things when it suited him, who contradicts them.
What is more trustworthy? Where is the weight of the evidence?
Can it be any more obvious?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi DrWearWord
there nothing new under the Sun
I never tried to belittle you
i did not want too that
but let ask one thing
which came first in sex
the man's or the woman
coming together
there was many first
the plant of seed to the birth of the seed
i trying to help you see that you have nothing new neither do I
I understand zero but do you
can a line be straight but also curve?
when is fool wise?
when the answer known?
thanks
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I/m not a mathematician . . but I believe anything divided by zero is undefined
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When division is explained at the elementary arithmetic level, it is often considered as a description of dividing a set of objects into equal parts. As an example, consider having ten apples, and these apples are to be distributed equally to five people at a table. Each person would receive 10/5 = 2 apples. Similarly, if there are 10 apples, and only one person at the table, that person would receive 10/1 = 10 apples.
So for dividing by zero – what is the number of apples that each person receives when 10 apples are fairly distributed amongst 0 people? Certain words can be pinpointed in the question to highlight the problem. The problem with this question is the "when". There is no way to distribute 10 apples amongst 0 people. In mathematical jargon, a set of 10 items cannot be partitioned into 0 subsets. So 10/0, at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined.
Similar problems occur if we have 0 apples and 0 people, but this time the problem is in the phrase "the number". A partition is possible (of a set with 0 elements into 0 parts), but since the partition has 0 parts, vacuously every set in our partition has a given number of elements, be it 0, 2, 5, or 1000. If there are, say, 5 apples and 2 people, the problem is in the word "fairly". In any partition of a 5-set into 2 parts, one of the parts of the partition will have more elements than the other.
In all of the above three cases, 10/0, 0/0, and 5/2, one is asked to consider an impossible situation before deciding what the answer will be, and that is why the operations are undefined in these cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the beauty of zero
whether in it or not
it can not be be defined, articulated or explained
it can be experienced
not by intelligence or lack of
those who have can know those who have
by words unsaid,
past language into recognizing thoughts
it won't be cornered nor had by decision of one's self
it's own boundless will retained and not to be underestimated
the power of zero will overwhelm
and can be misinterpreted easily by man, and selfishness
but not by spirit, for it unselfishly reveals, in it's time
i see no need for sirg to apologize for that which is revealed to him
nor for anyone else
though i will disagree with many, even sirg
it matters not, cause our paths cross often
and the overall picture is not disturbed.....
the mind is troubled
seeking...fearing....death and dieing
the heart of zero
visited, and soon to be home in
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
That is when the zero is divided by X (an unknown value) not zero which is assumed to have no value...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Source please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
WordWolf you are apparently vastly ignorant of the mystery system and its dual nature and if you want to go on kidding yourself with providing shoddy logic and wearing blindfolds be my guest.
Hislop did not only jump from language to language with just the word zero but he showed time and again with MANY OTHER words which also are contained in religious systems. Even in remote places "like Easter isle" similar words could be found connected to similar deities. These pagans religions fit together like a hand in a glove... So it is not just the word zero but may interconnected strata. Connections like the days of the week are pronounced similar in nearly every country, major deities and month names are derivatives of one another... WHY? Because they are all PAGAN... Not only the names are similar but also the myths are nearly identical and practice. With them their pantheons are attributed with, giving secret knowledge to early humans as fire, confounders of the wise, Two faced "heroes", a flood story, fortifiers, zero's as crowns for kings, circular regal rings representing zero (and "the seed"), halos, sun worship, also the sun as the beginning of time (let there be light), fertility gods and goddesses, and let's not forget thier common use of baptism, the trinity, pagan festivals are also too strikingly similar to not be connected. Now you can insult Hislop but ultimately that only leaves you unenlightened to what others secretively perceive.
Names like regal, rex, ra, rey, eric, heinrich, enrique, (and many more) all meaning king in their respective languages.
And, not all love is blind... Only impetuous love.
Are both God and Ray Charles impetuous? Your proof has easily been shot down for its holes. But you could not use the Bible to shoot down my proof why? because the Bible supports it too thoroughly.
You state a faulty proof and you must compare it with many checks and balances to support it. Many Hundreds of scriptures back up my proof as REASONS and what supports your proof? NOTHING but your silly rhetorical rational. Your rational is like saying because the sky is blue today it is always blue. Well a proof needs to stand up to more scrutiny than one days observation. My proof stands up with many reasons presented in the word and numerous other sources...
Just consider what "cipher" means... it means, a key that unlocks understanding. How does that relate to zero. Just as zero is the key that unlocks all numbers and value. As also Jesus held up the mustard seed as a "cipher" that unlocked wisdom and understanding, a seed of wisdom a "kernel of truth"... Cipher means seed also... So yes a seed is also a cipher and out of the seed grows the offspring of the knowledge and understanding. This simply obliterates further your assertion that seed (zera) is not zero... One kernel of truth can open many locked conundrums.
When you see nothing in zero beyond an empty value thus you will in turn reap the fruitless conclusions that you sow.
omni present zero, full circle.
Proverbs 8:27 KJV
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Comment: A compass draws a circle which is the seed of all geometry...
Also WordWolf have you ever heard an Arabic person pronounce the word cipher? Well I have... Cipher is pronounced "seephra"...
Well it is nearly identical in pronunciation to the word zera.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"zero is the key that unlocks all numbers and value."
From the standpoint of mathematical history, that is simply not accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
That is why math is referred to as "problems"
One half of zero is zero, one third of zero is zero, one forth of zero is zero, one fifth of zero is also zero, zero divided by one hundred is one hundred hundredths of zero and that still equals zero, and so on. You can't divide zero by a whole number and end up in the positive or negative.
Zero divided by nothing leave nothing.
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
If you subtract zero from zero you get zero.
If you subtract a positive or negative number from zero you go deeper in the hole. Simple grammar school logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
In the beginning zero created one and two.
This is very nice writing cman.
Thanks for the beautiful imagery and depth of understanding.
The cipher is deciphered. :)
And where is your source for that statement?
Have you ever tried to multiply roman numerals?
MCVIIXVVV x MVXIIVCIIV = ?
also consider 0 and 1 are the basis for all computer languages today.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Ten divided by zero = ten (or ten tenths) you are certainly not going to end up with one less or one more apple by dividing it by zero. The number ten is based upon ten single values in a set of ten. One assumes if there is no value to divide ten it defaults to 1 or else ten would be x instead. When one uses the word ten it is already divided by one. We would assumes someone is doing the dividing, say "an observer". This is also because zero can also be considered as one in some rare instances. Only X divided by zero is undefined. You define and divide ten when you invoke the word ten.
But zero divided by ten is zero.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
It is interesting to note that the word zero also means desert. It gives insight into why Jesus went into the desert to fast. Fasting is zero physical nourishment. Jesus went to zero to cipher God's "still small voice". Only in the desert or at zero was Jesus able to communicate with the spirits. It is ironic that in a barren place as the desert that wisdom is obtained. That zero is the bringer of truth. The serpent in Genesis was also the bringer of knowledge as snakes are also indigenous to desert places. This is where Jesus himself was tempted. We can then understand that that temptation was related to the seed of the true God. That barren places (an invisible God) and out of zero is born new life from the seed of truth.
Thus the desert is zero and zero is the seed of wisdom and truth. The new birth must also be a desert implanted within so that the holy spirit can communicate to the heart. In this desert fasting from the extraneous noise and bustle of life we are enabled to hear the still small voice of zero as the seed of the word of God.
Also,
The sun, "sunya-m" the circle of time is the bringer of truth in the desert as the sun is the seed of all life on earth. As the sun is prevalent in the desert and is also the harbinger of death. And as the earth encircles the sun, life is within the circle. The sun of the desert may also give insight as to why water was used in baptism. Also mana was life giving wisdom obtained in the desert through the seed of a barren landscape. The wisdom of zero is nourishment to the soul. Zero gives insight into why Jesus turned water into wine and consumed the wine so that the seed of zero was impregnated. For before water baptism was external and did not pierce the circumference of zero. Also why bread is often made into circular cakes in remembrance of zero and the mana of the desert (zero) or "bread of life". That baptism in the new testament can be represented as a line drawn from outside the perimeter of the circle into the center of the circle.
The desert seems perched exactly between life and death as zero is perched between the positive and negative numbers. As zero is perched between what is seen and unseen as paganism is a worshiping of what is seen and the God of the bible is in the realm of what is unseen. Thus the desert as being barren is a place of communing with zero as the unseen God.
As the serpent tempted Jesus to worship the seen world over the unseen God. To worship the creation one over the invisible creator zero. Jesus was temped three times to worship serpents, flying birds and hoofed creatures and even the visible sun over zero. As zero symbolizes a circular perimeter drawn around an empty space thus we receive the seed of an invisible God.
In this temptation the seed of zero is revealed and postulated even further.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
bulwinkl
Your logic seems to be a tad bit lacking there. the inverse of division is multiplication. by your logic if one has zero sets of ten apples he really has 10 apples. in reality if a person has 1 set of ten apples he has ten apples.
the zero in ten is just a place holder. all it means is there are no "1"'s. Just as in if you add 1 to 99 you don't wind up with two zeroes and a one. the zeroes are just place holders meaning there are zilch, nada, none of those units we call tens and zilch, nada, none of those units we call ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Division is not always the inverse of multiplication when you factor in zero. That is why I said only zero has the ability to "create" no other number can create.
Zero giveth and zero taketh away.
zero divided by ten is zero, ten divided by zero is 10.
Dividing ten apples by zero is not going to make them vanish. Whatever the answer after dividing ten by zero you will still have ten apples.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
bulwinkl
Such contortions of logic are amazing. ten apples given to ten people equally each one gets one. ten apples given to no people or zero people. now how many apples do each of the non-existent people have??? zero by definition means nothing, zilch,nada,empty,the opposite of something.I have 10 chairs and 0 rooms how many chairs goes in each room? what rooms??????!!!! there aren't any!!!!!!
10 divided by 1 is 10 and if 10 divided by 0 is ten; then 0 is the same as one.
Edited by bulwinklLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Zero
01-27-2010
A study of word Zero and names of names 0 in English like zero, cipher, naught, love, duck, nil, zilch, zip, and O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0_in_English
Article Grammar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article
Rasputin – the new Zero
http://rippol.com/watch/english/old-english/rasputina---the-new-zero/?g=1245&t=19762&v=2136185
SMPS Colorado to Host Annual
Off-the-Shelf Technology Creates Zero-Carbon Impact Home
http://www.oldeenglishmasonry.com/docs/article1.pdf
Old English deverbal substantives derived by means of a zero morpheme.
by Dieter Kastovsky
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL5712323M/Old_English_deverbal_substantives_derived_by_means_of_a_zero_morpheme.
http://books.google.com/books?q=Zero+old+English&source=in&ei=Q8pgS6DdJNWUtgfZmvDYDQ&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQsAMwCg
One finds in English old English there old and Middle English and new English so words change meaning over time. So you tell me my friend does it mean what today.
With love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Have you ever noticed that, when a dog chases its tail, the result is zero?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. In a mathematical sense, zero is everything..
It's just two ends of a Riemann sphere..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.