The FLOOD of NOAH did happen, but not as the Church teaches

[_bcspace]

It doesn't. I've already mentioned that, by extension, I don't agree with the baptism of the earth doctrine.

Ah, by your statement you then admit it was doctrine.

It still is doctrine. I will always freely admit doctrine and I think there are some critics here who will vouch for that. Those apologists (actually only a few) who disagree with what the Church says about how to identify it's doctrine are in a bind because perhaps they've not been able to successfully defend the doctrine as well as I have, or somehow, they fear to admit they disagree with doctrine and so their standard for doctrine (which can't be defended by any Church statements) has to be such as will give them plausible denial. Dishonest imho.

Why is ok then for you to disagree with doctrine?

Depends on how important a specific doctrine is. More often than not, I don't actually disagree with doctrine, but I fill in the details (always allowable) differently than others. Also, the less important it is, the more it might be subject (imho) to change with new findings or new revelation. With my non acceptance of a global Flood, I don;t think I have anything to fear. I've even expressed it publicly on Sundays in class or other meetings.

As for related doctrines such as the creation, I don't disagree with any of it as far as I can tell but I do accept full scientific evolution as the proper explanation for how God created man's physical body.

[_Daheshist]

Dear Contradictor,


1. I got Urartu meaning 'Lava flows' from a book written by an scholar on Akkadian. No, I didn't write down the source. I read that probably 24 years ago.

2. Ok, you are correct in that "Ararat" was invented by the Jewish scribes before 600 A.D., based upon the Hebrew "RRT".

3. Some Fundies do know Hebrew, but they "ignore" it, or, more likely, they do what Mormon scholars and scientists do: they "split" into "Believer" and "Scientist"--the Believer accepts what their church teaches, and the scientist does not. But most Fundies are IGNORANT, in my personal opinion. NOT because they don't know Hebrew, but because they "ignore" any fact they don't wish to agree with. They are "ignore"-ant. They "ignore" facts and evidence they don't wish to accept. That is what I mean by "ignorant".

4. Jerome called Ararat "Masis". I was unaware he called it "Ararat". My point is, the mountain was called "Masis" until the Christians mistook it for "Mount Ararat" which we agree never existed before the Christians began to refer to Masis as "Ararat" and is not what the author of Genesis is referring to. In other words, the Hebrew does not say "the Ark rested upon Mount Ararat" but "the ark rested upon the hariym of Urartu" and "hariym" can mean a huge mountain or a small hill. Fundies think these must be "mountains". Har Magiddo is a hill, not a mountain. "Hariym" is plural of "har". Can mean mountains or hills.

5. At least a few scholars believe there are "similarities" between Urartian and Sumerian, and I read one that said that the Sumerians were Urartian colonists. Again, not making that up. Again, did not write down the source. I was not writing a book nor working on a thesis or dissertation.

6. I admit the Iceman was injured, but there was there not some "healing" of his wounds post injury (that is what I remember hearing when I watched a special about him), and I THOUGHT he died at 3400 B.C. but you are sure at 3200 B.C. right? They are positive with that date?

7. Utter nonsense? So, "40" does not mean "many" and "70" does not mean "very many" and "72" does not mean "very many and then some" in the Semitic languages? These are meant to be literal years and not generalities? The hills surrounding the Valley of Ararat are not barren and only grow a type of crab grass? The River Aras does not flow through a long thin gorge that can easily be clogged especially in continued heavy rains when there are large mud flows?

8. Yes, the Burckle Crater, and the tsumani scars on Madagascar, and the ice-core evidence in Greenland, all point to a major event about 3400 B.C.; a comet hit the Indian Ocean. I believe the proof is there. Not absolute proof, but preponderance of evidence.

The story fo Noah comes from Armenia, or ancient Urartu. The ancient Hebrew had no vowels, so that land is callred RRT.

Actually the Hebrew is אררט, or 'rrt. The aleph generally indicates an /a/ quality vowel.

When Hebrew got vowels, about 600 A.D., the scribes had to "en-vowel" every word in the Hebrew text.

Hebrew didn't "get vowels" around 600 CE. The language itself uses vowels, but the script could only express a few of them (yod, aleph, ayin, he, waw). Down to the present day, normal written Hebrew does not use vowels. Vowels were developed for the text of the Hebrew Bible because the language had stopped being used for speaking and comprehension was more difficult. Different attempts to vocalize the text of the Hebrew Bible date back to well before 600 CE, but the Masoretic system, which is the one that became standard, began to be developed around that time.

But, they did not know what "RRT" meant or where it was. So, they simply used an "A"......."A"R"A"R"A"T.

Neither claims are true. The Septuagint, translated around 200-100 BCE, renders Αραρατ, or Ararat. Jerome's Vulgate, translated around 400 CE, renders the Hebrew "mountains of Ararat" with montes Armeniae. The eastern Christian traditions had another traditional location for the mountain, which I'll get to later, but the western tradition became standardized pretty quickly.

At the time, there was no mountain named "Ararat".

Of course not. Genesis simply mentions a region called Ararat, which is obviously a Hebrew version of the Assyrian Urartu (Babylonian Urashtu).

The Mountain now named "Ararat" was not named that until the 9th century, by Christians living there. It was called by the Turks Agra Dag (Angry Mountain) and by the Armenians "Masis". The Kurds called it something else, but never in its history until then was it ever called "Ararat".

Nope. Jerome interpreted Josephus' description as a reference to the highest peak in Armenia, then called Masis. That was around 400 CE.

Bible scholars today are sure that "RRT" does not refer to "Mount Ararat" but in fact to "uRaRTu"; the ancient land of Armenia.

This is not true. The words "Ararat" and "Urartu" refer to the exact same place, they're just two different transliterations of versions of the name from two different languages. In some Assyrian texts, it's spelled Uratri or Uruatri.

It means in Akkadian "lava flows".

What is your source for this? I can find no known meaning in any of my resources.

Indeed, Armenia has a LOT of dead volcanoes is was known as the Land of Lava Flows. So, "RRT" refers to ancient Armenia, long before it was called "Armenia".

Not too long. The name Armenia dates to Herodotus, and that section of Genesis only dates to around four centuries earlier.

The ancient people of Urartu spoke Urartian, a language very similar to Sumerian. Some scholars think the Sumerians were in fact "colonists" from Urartu.

No they don't. Sumerian is a language isolate. Urartian is related to Hurrian, and the two languages are the only members of their language family. A broader classification called Alarodian has been proposed as a kind of umbrella family over the Northeast Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian languages, but that's not been very successful.

According to local Armenian legend, Noah was named Nokhcht (nawghkkhhchtd), and, indeed, the southern plain of the Valley of Armenia is called by this name, and the capital is "Nokhcht-evan" (Place of Nokhcht). According to legend, "Nokhct" means "He came down" or "He descended [from heaven]".

The legend is that it means "Place of Descent," although some think it means "first landing."

Again, the ancient language of Urartu is not spoken anywhere today, and Armenian is not that language. Armenians is related to ancient Persian and also Greek. There are some similarities between Urartian and the language spoken by the Dagistanis; a people just east of Chechnya.

The Valley of the Aras River, also called the Valley or Ararat, is closed on all sides by high mountains. Upon these mountains are UNfertile lava flows. Nothing but some grass grows on these lava flows that only the most hearty of goats have much trouble digesting it. There are no trees at all on the lava flows. They are barren except for some inedible crab-grass. The only fertile part of the Valley of Armenia is the valley floor, which is extremely fertile, and great for growing grapes. Noah is called a "husbandman" (grape-grower). That means, if the Valley is flooded, people and animals could not live on the surrounding hills, because even their sheep could not survive in the hills.

Very little rain or moisture in the Valley of the Aras (Armenia). However, in 3400 B.C. a comet hit the Indian ocean about 400 miles southeast of Madagascar. Much proof for this.

Are you referring to the Burckle Crater?

The comet hit the ocean, and set trillions of tons of water vapor into the stratosphere, which came down, all over the earth, as rain in the warmer climates and snow in the colder ones. This is what "froze" the mammaths of Siberia. This is what "froze" the "Ice Man" who was discovered only in recent years in the Alps. He was "froze" about 3400 B.C. He was an unlucky guy to be up in the Alps when the comet hit.

Actually he was killed by a blow to the head that followed being hit by an arrow that was subsequently removed, and he died around 3300 BCE.

Now, did the water vapor "cover" the entire earth 15 feet above Mount Everest, and most Fundies believe? No! Certainly, there was "flooding" all over the Earth, and many lowlands were flooded, rain and snow just about everywhere, but, again, the Earth was not "baptized" by total immersion ion as the Church used to teach.

But, the Valley of Armenia was flooded. Why? Because the Aras River must pass through a gorge called the Kor-E Gorge, which is over 50 miles. Very narrow! a lot narrower I'm sure in 3400 B.C. On each side of the gorge are high cliffs. Excessive rain (which Armenia rarely gets) would have caused many mud-slides, and debris, blocking and clogging the Kor-E gorge. This would be like plugging the drain in a bath tub. The water had no place to go but up.

Noah had to have "anchors" so his Ark would not travel out the gorge once it became unblocked, and so the Ark would not crash to pieces on the sides of the Valley; which has many hills. These Anchor stones can still be found near Nakhchtevan (the Place of Noah); which is the southern half of the Valley of Armenia.

If the rains lasted for "40 days" (meaning many days and nights), the people would not be saved by climbing up on the nearby hills or mountains. There would be nothing to eat. The animals would not be able to eat the kind of grass that grows there still today. The people would have slaughtered the animals for food, but all food would be gone in about a week or two, and the people could have survived maybe a week without food then they would be dead.

That's a whole lot of utter nonsense.

The Hebrew does NOT say that the Ark "rested on mount Ararat" and so many stupid Fundies think.

Those stupid Fundies. I bet they don't even know Hebrew.

The Hebrews says that the Ark rested "on the high places of Urartu".

"Upon the mountains of Ararat," to be literal. It does not say "high places."

That means on the lava slow hills surrounding the valley floor. The word used in Hebrew is "Hariym" (hills, mountains). The name Har Megiddo is used for "Mount Megiddo" which is only about three stories high, so "high mountains" is a mistranslation.

First, Tel Megiddo is quite a bit larger than three stories, but the word הר can refer to small and large mountains.

"Hariym" simply mean "high places" and can mean a small hill or a great mountain.

No, it does not mean "high places." It refers to hills and mountains, and it comes from an obscure root that likely means "to loom over."

The Ark of Noah did not float from Sea-Level in North Carolina and land up resting on top of Mount Ararat, a mountain 14,000 feet high! Such is nonsense in the extreme. The Ark was anchored, and probably did not move much; no more than a fat kid in an inner-tube resting in a pool. There was no reason to "sail" or move around. The Ark was square, not pointed like a ship. The last thing Noah wanted was to move around and dash the Ark to pieces on the hills or the sides of the gorge. That's why he anchored it. Google: "anchor stones of Noah" to see photos of the anchor stones which still survive.

Yeah, that's much more believable.

The wood of Noah's ship would not survive today until it was buried within a few years after the flood. The floor of the valley of Armenia was covered in forest, and probably had a lot of forest left in Noah's day, but today there are few trees, because the land must be farmed, and also because people have used wood for building and fuel for cooking and heat for thousands of years there. Over thousands of years, people cut down the trees, and then they even dig up the stumps, for fuel for heating and cokking. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) was once covered in trees. Now it is barren; because of people use wood for heat and cooking. Noah and his family would be INSANE to "NOT" use the wood of the Ark for building and for fuel, for generations after that. Otherwise, the wood would have rotted away and been useless to them after the Flood. So, don't except to find Noah's Ark somewhere in Armenia today. Just over about 100 years, the descendants of Noah would have used all the wood for fuel for cooking and heating and for beams for their houses. And the beams would have rotted away long ago.

The Hebrew does NOT say that the flood covered the entire planet Earth. The ancient Hebrews had no concept of a ball floating in space called "Earth".

They did have a concept of a circular disc containing all the land of the "earth." ארץ could mean "land," or "earth."

The Hebrew says that the flood covered the entire "eretz" (land) by 35 cubits (the cubit is the space between the elbow and the end of the thumb). It is absolutely possible for the Valley of Armenia to have been flooded in this manner!

And why would you think this means ancient Hebrews couldn't have thought it happened?

The "land" (eretz) was the plain, the level ground, the fertile level ground upon which animals ate and things could be grown. A perfect description of the valley floor of the valley of Armenia.

The word does not specify any specific shape to the land.

Type in "Map of Armenia" and you'll see how the Valley of the Aras can fill up like a bowel, and how narrow the gorge is that drains the Aras river! Also Google "Comet his the Indian ocean in 3400 B.C." and you'll read more about the comet that send so much water vapor into orbit around the planet, that came down as rain and snow. It really happened.

There is a "mound" in central Nokhchtevan, which locals say is the burial place of Noah. Google it, and you'll see it.

Stunning.

[_Buffalo]

The LDS Church merely adopted traditional Christian doctrine as there is no modern revelation on the subject.

The LDS Church merely adopted traditional Christian doctrine as there is no modern revelation on the subject. Scripture like the Book of Mormon merely transmit the Flood story. I don't see how this could be unreasonable even though I personally accept a local Flood.

I also prefer the flooding of the Black Sea to the comet hypothesis.

Incorrect.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/8?lang=eng

27 And thus Noah found agrace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and bperfect in his generation; and he cwalked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

28 The aearth was bcorrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth.

30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will adestroy all flesh from off the earth.


Not only is a global flood official doctrine, it was received by direct revelation. :)

Still hiding, I see.

[_maklelan]

Dear Contradictor,

This is how I know your response is just going to be amazingly insightful and isn't going to skip over any of the concerns I posted.

1. I got Urartu meaning 'Lava flows' from a book written by an scholar on Akkadian. No, I didn't write down the source. I read that probably 24 years ago.

Cite the book. I own numerous books by scholars on Akkadian, including lexicons, and I find no such suggestion.

2. Ok, you are correct in that "Ararat" was invented by the Jewish scribes before 600 A.D., based upon the Hebrew "RRT".

Still incorrect. You're leaving the aleph off of the beginning of the word, which would lead one, unless another vocalization tradition was current, to begin the word with an /a/ quality vowel.

3. Some Fundies do know Hebrew, but they "ignore" it, or, more likely, they do what Mormon scholars and scientists do: they "split" into "Believer" and "Scientist"--the Believer accepts what their church teaches, and the scientist does not. But most Fundies are IGNORANT, in my personal opinion. NOT because they don't know Hebrew, but because they "ignore" any fact they don't wish to agree with. They are "ignore"-ant. They "ignore" facts and evidence they don't wish to accept. That is what I mean by "ignorant".

Then you condemn yourself. You obviously don't know Hebrew and are blithely going about ignoring whatever disagrees with your speculation.

4. Jerome called Ararat "Masis". I was unaware he called it "Ararat".

I don't think you read my statement correctly. He identified Mount Ararat (which had been called Ararat for 600 years already) with Masis in his writings, but he correctly understood Gen 8:4 to refer to a region, not a specific mountain, and translated the phrase "mountains of Armenia" in the Vulgate.

My point is, the mountain was called "Masis" until the Christians mistook it for "Mount Ararat" which we agree never existed before the Christians began to refer to Masis as "Ararat" and is not what the author of Genesis is referring to.

Your point is wrong. It was not identified by Christian monks, it was identified as far back as Jerome with Masis.

In other words, the Hebrew does not say "the Ark rested upon Mount Ararat" but "the ark rested upon the hariym of Urartu"

I have already pointed out multiple times that it refers to a collection of mountains within the region of Ararat. There is simply no reason to insists on Urartu instead of Ararat. All that does is insist on one form of the Assyrian spelling rather than the Hebrew.

and "hariym" can mean a huge mountain or a small hill. Fundies think these must be "mountains". Har Magiddo is a hill, not a mountain. "Hariym" is plural of "har". Can mean mountains or hills.

Yes, but ambiguity is not a license to just assert that it means what you want.

5. At least a few scholars believe there are "similarities" between Urartian and Sumerian, and I read one that said that the Sumerians were Urartian colonists. Again, not making that up. Again, did not write down the source. I was not writing a book nor working on a thesis or dissertation.

Well, that theory has little standing today.

6. I admit the Iceman was injured, but there was there not some "healing" of his wounds post injury (that is what I remember hearing when I watched a special about him), and I THOUGHT he died at 3400 B.C. but you are sure at 3200 B.C. right? They are positive with that date?

His body was carbon dated to around 5300 years ago, and the cause of death is understood by scientists to have been trauma to the head.

7. Utter nonsense?

Yes.

So, "40" does not mean "many" and "70" does not mean "very many" and "72" does not mean "very many and then some" in the Semitic languages?

Of all your comments, why did you pick the least speculative to hold up and complain about?

These are meant to be literal years and not generalities? The hills surrounding the Valley of Ararat are not barren and only grow a type of crab grass? The River Aras does not flow through a long thin gorge that can easily be clogged especially in continued heavy rains when there are large mud flows?

8. Yes, the Burckle Crater, and the tsumani scars on Madagascar, and the ice-core evidence in Greenland, all point to a major event about 3400 B.C.; a comet hit the Indian Ocean. I believe the proof is there. Not absolute proof, but preponderance of evidence.

The Burckle Crater is generally dated to 2800 to 3000 BCE, and I poked around and found that the "tsunami scars" on Madagascar are not currently thought to be from a tsunami (here).

[_Daheshist]

Dear Contradictor,

You remind me of a 65 year old Mormon man I got into a debate with. I said that I was appauled by the hypocrisy of Mormons in Utah. Because, I SAW it...everywhere. The guys I worked for smoked and drank liquor all day, and they were active in their Elder's Quorum. Non-Mormons I worked for told me about all the Mormon girls they boffed, the lying, etc. He got mad and said, "I have lived in Utah all my life, and I've never known a Mormon to lie, to cheat, to have sex outside of marriage, never! Never saw it one time, and I've lived her for 65 years!!!!"

There are certain personality types, such as you, who suffer from something called NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Nay, they don't suffer from I...I suffer from THEIR "NPD".

Sir, you have NPD. And we can go around and around and around and around, and it never stops, because you're what is called a "Contradictor". If I said the sky was blue, you would say its a shade of purple. I've learned over many years, not to get into discussions with Contradictors, because they never end. They never admit they are ever wrong, mistaken about one little thing, not only the minutest of things. Their egos are too massive.

Good bye.

Dear Contradictor,

This is how I know your response is just going to be amazingly insightful and isn't going to skip over any of the concerns I posted.

1. I got Urartu meaning 'Lava flows' from a book written by an scholar on Akkadian. No, I didn't write down the source. I read that probably 24 years ago.

Cite the book. I own numerous books by scholars on Akkadian, including lexicons, and I find no such suggestion.

2. Ok, you are correct in that "Ararat" was invented by the Jewish scribes before 600 A.D., based upon the Hebrew "RRT".

Still incorrect. You're leaving the aleph off of the beginning of the word, which would lead one, unless another vocalization tradition was current, to begin the word with an /a/ quality vowel.

3. Some Fundies do know Hebrew, but they "ignore" it, or, more likely, they do what Mormon scholars and scientists do: they "split" into "Believer" and "Scientist"--the Believer accepts what their church teaches, and the scientist does not. But most Fundies are IGNORANT, in my personal opinion. NOT because they don't know Hebrew, but because they "ignore" any fact they don't wish to agree with. They are "ignore"-ant. They "ignore" facts and evidence they don't wish to accept. That is what I mean by "ignorant".

Then you condemn yourself. You obviously don't know Hebrew and are blithely going about ignoring whatever disagrees with your speculation.

4. Jerome called Ararat "Masis". I was unaware he called it "Ararat".

I don't think you read my statement correctly. He identified Mount Ararat (which had been called Ararat for 600 years already) with Masis in his writings, but he correctly understood Gen 8:4 to refer to a region, not a specific mountain, and translated the phrase "mountains of Armenia" in the Vulgate.

My point is, the mountain was called "Masis" until the Christians mistook it for "Mount Ararat" which we agree never existed before the Christians began to refer to Masis as "Ararat" and is not what the author of Genesis is referring to.

Your point is wrong. It was not identified by Christian monks, it was identified as far back as Jerome with Masis.

In other words, the Hebrew does not say "the Ark rested upon Mount Ararat" but "the ark rested upon the hariym of Urartu"

I have already pointed out multiple times that it refers to a collection of mountains within the region of Ararat. There is simply no reason to insists on Urartu instead of Ararat. All that does is insist on one form of the Assyrian spelling rather than the Hebrew.

and "hariym" can mean a huge mountain or a small hill. Fundies think these must be "mountains". Har Magiddo is a hill, not a mountain. "Hariym" is plural of "har". Can mean mountains or hills.

Yes, but ambiguity is not a license to just assert that it means what you want.

5. At least a few scholars believe there are "similarities" between Urartian and Sumerian, and I read one that said that the Sumerians were Urartian colonists. Again, not making that up. Again, did not write down the source. I was not writing a book nor working on a thesis or dissertation.

Well, that theory has little standing today.

6. I admit the Iceman was injured, but there was there not some "healing" of his wounds post injury (that is what I remember hearing when I watched a special about him), and I THOUGHT he died at 3400 B.C. but you are sure at 3200 B.C. right? They are positive with that date?

His body was carbon dated to around 5300 years ago, and the cause of death is understood by scientists to have been trauma to the head.

7. Utter nonsense?

Yes.

So, "40" does not mean "many" and "70" does not mean "very many" and "72" does not mean "very many and then some" in the Semitic languages?

Of all your comments, why did you pick the least speculative to hold up and complain about?

These are meant to be literal years and not generalities? The hills surrounding the Valley of Ararat are not barren and only grow a type of crab grass? The River Aras does not flow through a long thin gorge that can easily be clogged especially in continued heavy rains when there are large mud flows?

8. Yes, the Burckle Crater, and the tsumani scars on Madagascar, and the ice-core evidence in Greenland, all point to a major event about 3400 B.C.; a comet hit the Indian Ocean. I believe the proof is there. Not absolute proof, but preponderance of evidence.

The Burckle Crater is generally dated to 2800 to 3000 BCE, and I poked around and found that the "tsunami scars" on Madagascar are not currently thought to be from a tsunami (here).

[_maklelan]

Dear Contradictor,

You remind me of a 65 year old Mormon man I got into a debate with. I said that I was appauled by the hypocrisy of Mormons in Utah. Because, I SAW it...everywhere. The guys I worked for smoked and drank liquor all day, and they were active in their Elder's Quorum. Non-Mormons I worked for told me about all the Mormon girls they boffed, the lying, etc. He got mad and said, "I have lived in Utah all my life, and I've never known a Mormon to lie, to cheat, to have sex outside of marriage, never! Never saw it one time, and I've lived her for 65 years!!!!"

There are certain personality types, such as you, who suffer from something called NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Nay, they don't suffer from I...I suffer from THEIR "NPD".

Sir, you have NPD. And we can go around and around and around and around, and it never stops, because you're what is called a "Contradictor". If I said the sky was blue, you would say its a shade of purple. I've learned over many years, not to get into discussions with Contradictors, because they never end. They never admit they are ever wrong, mistaken about one little thing, not only the minutest of things. Their egos are too massive.

Good bye.

This is how you're going to evade addressing serious and legitimate concerns I have with your argument? You're just going to say Mormons are hypocrites and I'm a narcissist and then take your ball and go home? Are you serious?

[_Shulem]

This is how you're going to evade addressing serious and legitimate concerns I have with your argument? You're just going to say Mormons are hypocrites and I'm a narcissist and then take your ball and go home? Are you serious?

You ARE a cocky little thing. I'm not going to derail this thread. Come on down to the Telestial board and open a thread about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. I want to tear you a new one and bleed you like a stuffed pig.

Down there, you can tell me the name of the king since you are soooooo knowledgable about foreign languages. I want to hand you the head of Joe Smith on a silver platter.

Paul O

[_maklelan]

You ARE a cocky little thing.

Wow, you got me there.

I'm not going to derail this thread. Come on down to the Telestial board and open a thread about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. I want to tear you a new one and bleed you like a stuffed pig.

It's "stuck pig," and I really don't have a dog in that fight.

Down there, you can tell me the name of the king since you are soooooo knowledgable about foreign languages. I want to hand you the head of Joe Smith on a silver platter.

Paul O

You mean Isis? Why do we need to go down to the Telestial kingdom for me to tell you that?

[_Shulem]

Mak-boy,

1. Yes, I've got you -- right where I want you.

2. I'll call a pig anyway I like, you need not correct that.

3. Isis is not a king. She is a goddess.

Get your sorry as down there to the telestial board -- I want to tear you to pieces you cocky little boy. Bring Your Facsimile No. 3 from your Mormon scriptures.

Paul O

[_maklelan]

Mak-boy,

1. Yes, I've got you -- right where I want you.

2. I'll call a pig anyway I like, you need not correct that.

3. Isis is not a king. She is a goddess.

She's the one labelled a king by Smith. Did you mean Osiris, then, or Osiris Hor?

Get your sorry as down there to the telestial board -- I want to tear you to pieces you cocky little boy. Bring Your Facsimile No. 3 from your Mormon scriptures.

Paul O

I think you need to find a better way to deal with your personal insecurities, Paul.