Sparks

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

The irony. 

Heat is another big reason for older computers to slow down.  The CPU will throttle back when it is over heating, and if it reaches heat at a certain point, it will simply snap the power off to protect itself.  Sometimes the heat sink compound is baked, dried, and needs to be removed and reapplied.  I would suggest letting a pro help you with the heat sink compound if you are not familiar with how to do it.  Maybe the CPU fan is not turning and needs to be replaced.

You can easily clean the dust off of CPUs, heat sinks and and power supply fans, but don't use a vacuum cleaner on the mother board or daughter boards because a vacuum can create a fast-moving vortex of air and dust that would likely cause a static charge zapping your mother board, RAM, or other sensitive electronics, several times, as you move the vacuum around.  Use a 'can of air' to puff the dust away on sensitive boards, or gently dislodge dust with a clean, dry, paint brush.  Make sure your fans are spinning and are not blocked from proper air flow.  That should allow your CPU speeds to run normally instead of throttled. 

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Seems unlikely, given that cuniform was not easily done on bronze.    checkable source?

2.3. Inscriptions on the Antikythera Mechanism

Inscriptions in ancient Greek have been found in many of the fragments of the Antikythera Mechanism. Practically all of them were originally on or around the dials on the exterior of the Mechanism itself, or on the detachable cover plates (the exceptions are letters or numerals on a few interior components, which likely served the mechanician to identify parts). The shorter inscriptions on the dials consist of single words, numerals, and symbols, and give information necessary for the reading of information off the dials, for example the year numbers and month names on the spiral Metonic calendar dial. The longer inscriptions, none of which survives in its entirety, were generally expressed in complete sentences, and provided detailed information about the Mechanism and the astronomical phenomena that it displayed, probably intended for the benefit of the operator and spectators of the Mechanism in action.

The inscriptions are engraved in skilfully executed serifed capital letters very similar to the lettering of inscriptions on stone from the last three centuries BC. The letter forms are most characteristic of the second half of the 2nd century BC,

http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4/

It seems the features of the mechanism were right at the edge of engineering precision of the time.

It would have been beyond the capability of Babylonian craftsmen of an earlier time.

And notice, no Babylonian writing.

Yes, there is evidence.  But since you never believe any of it, why bother?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The initial settings on the device suggest it was built shortly after 200 BC.   The fact that it had the Greek Zodiac rather than any Mesopotamian ones, indicates it was constructed in one of the Greek colonies.

Had some Babylonian writing, much older.

22 hours ago, teddyv said:

The Bible directly states that pi is 3. It's right there in the instructions for the Sea. It's about as prose as language gets. Since it was given a diameter, even if fractions were unknown, the circumference should be 31 cubits - that's an integer, not a fraction. 

The point is, you don't read the Bible literal like you claim to do (and demand everyone else should), or you make allowances for all sorts of things.

No, you read as a modern 20th-21st century person does.

You might want to look into Babylonian Arithmetic Methods which were as precision as the math we use today.  Look up The Antikythera mechanism which is basically an ancient hand-cranked computer that tracked the movement of planets in our solar system.  It was thought to be ancient Greek, but it has cuneiform writing on it indicating it is much older.  Look at the gears, and modern replica.

Not everyone back then was a sheep herder.

17 minutes ago, FJK said:

The only God you get closer to in studying science is Satan, Zohar can lead you either way according to your intent.

Let God guide your intent and you will grow closer to him, let Satan guide your intent and that is who you will grow closer to.

Do you know the deepest of depths of your own intent?  Few do.

You apparently cannot tell the difference between a book of evil written about God, and the Bible even after being told the differences.  Since you give each book equal credence, you obviously understand neither.

If you don't mind, I don't want to carry out this conversation any further since we could not possibly disagree, more.  If someday you figure out there is a difference between the two sources, look me up. 

Just now, FJK said:

I don't practice Kabbalah, but I do study some of it to understand the thinking of Jews. Remember that Jesus was a Jew and spoke of the secrets of the Kingdom of God, do you think he was speaking idle words?

I don't think anyone who reads the Zohar agrees on anything about it nor masters it, and while God allows you freewill choices, you should use them wisely. 

The only god you will get closer to in reading the Zohar, is Satan; the god of this world (little g).

7 minutes ago, FJK said:

It can be used that way, the same way Witchcraft can use Christian concepts and principles for evil purpose.

But it can also be used to study and grow closer in understanding and relationship with God.

As an analogy, the study of nuclear functions can produce either atom bombs for destruction or medical devices and treatments to heal people.

Like anything else, the intent of the person using it, be it knowledge or device, determines its outcome.

This is my experience.

If you are reading the Zohar and practicing Kabbalah, you are practicing black magic.  The people who practice Kabbalah believe God is both good and evil, which is their first huge mistake.  They try to enter Heaven without God or his permission, and are trying to study the words God used to create the Universe, to try to be God.

If you are studying that Satanic garbage, I would strongly suggest you not.

2 hours ago, FJK said:

You realize this is drifting toward Jewish esoteric thought (Hasidism, Zohar) and away from the worldly restrictions of scientific thought?

No, it is not but God Almighty is the same God the Jews worship.  The Jews were chosen by Him, first.

Now Kabbalah is black magic, and evil.  If you cannot tell the difference between the Bible and the Zohar, I guess that would explain your confusion about most of this topic, but God and his ways are supernatural. 

As for the restrictions of science, the only restriction of science (the tool) is that it can only be used to test and observe things in the natural world.  When Jesus brought people back from the dead, healed the sick, walked on water, science (the tool) would fail you because those things were supernatural. It might do you some good to study what science, isn't.

3 hours ago, FJK said:

Common science looks at light as something requiring a physical source to generate it such as the sun and doesn't consider that it can exist by itself independent of or even prior to a source that generates it.

I think you mean scientists.  Science cannot 'look' at anything, anymore than a screwdriver can, because science is simply a tool.

Revelation is a book about the end and a new beginning, but it gives us a clue about the beginning of it all.  God was the illumination then, and will be in our future. 

When God said 'Let there be light,' light came into existence along with gravity and the laws of physics, electricity and the various properties of the universe.  God didn't work in the dark simply because He created our sun later; He is light.  He can count the hours and call it a 24 hour day, for our sake and understanding.  In the future, for those saved, there will be no night.     

Revelation 21:23 (NKJV) The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

Revelation 21:25 (KJV) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Do you understand Genesis 1:1?

Yes, I do, and I understand how the phrase ties directly to Jesus.  In fact, you should too because I showed you. 

2 hours ago, FJK said:

Not really, I just find no use for it myself since it seems to be trying to understand the spiritual nature of things with knowledge produced by the intellect.

I tend to believe, as did Tesla, that "But instinct is something which transcends knowledge.".

So, do you believe the 24 hour day described in Genesis is trillions of years, or something like that?

23 minutes ago, FJK said:

When I study the Bible I find asking Holy Spirit to be my guide in understanding is far more desirable than using any man invented method to try to do so.

Otherwise it is to easy to fall into the trap of trying to make it what I want it to say instead understanding of what it truly says.

This is the way I believe, and nothing in this discussion has changed that in any way.

I put my trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit to direct me above all else.

Do you disagree with what I have written, and my reasoning?  I have already told you, it's not 'my way.'  Would you say that a person who was not saved would even know what that passage meant, describing Jesus being God?  The text is clear when you know what John meant.

For what it is worth, the Holy Spirit won't disagree with Himself, and for that matter neither will the Bible which was written by man, but which was Holy Spirit inspired.  

36 minutes ago, FJK said:

Which of the four major types of hermeneutics (moral, anagogical, literal. allegorical) should be used and when?

Hermeneutics is a tool kit, with tools.  Not a single tool. 

36 minutes ago, FJK said:

Should only one be used or should all of them be used and compared every time or should one be used sometimes and others at other times?

When you study Hermeneutics, you will know what to apply to what type of reading.

36 minutes ago, FJK said:

How do we use this to help us to develop a closer and more effective relationship with Christ and practice it in our daily lives?

A person who has accepted the Gift of Salvation has their own personal relationship with their savior, Jesus Christ.  If you want to know more about Jesus, that is what the Bible is about from cover to cover.  If you want to know more about how to understand the Bible, then Hermeneutics helps you to understand the Bible.

What did John mean by "The Word?"  It has a deeper meaning to people of those ancient times, for both the Jews and Gentiles, but suffice it say he is describing Jesus, himself.  "The Word" = Jesus.

Knowing that, what does this scripture say?

John 1:1 (KJV)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 (KJV) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

If a person didn't know what John meant by 'the Word,' would they arrive at the right translation that Jesus is God in these scriptures?
 

7 hours ago, FJK said:

What would that "correct" way be and who determined that it is the correct way?

What did Jesus say about it?

I have already told you, and demonstrated it. 

Think of Hermeneutics as a tool kit; a set of rules for interpretation that helps you to understand what the original authors of the Bible were saying.  Part of it are rules for reading narratives, versus prophecy, versus poetic form, versus legal material, and so on, and part is understanding the times, and the culture back then.

What does it mean when a Jew, of ancient times, tore his garment?  It had specific meaning, but what meaning?  To a Jew of those times, it needed no explanation.

Genesis 37:29 Then Reuben returned to the pit, and indeed Joseph was not in the pit; and he tore his clothes.

It is puzzling in our times that a person would tear their clothes, and if we went back in time, and spoke perfect Hebrew, my guess is that those people would not understand a 'mosh pit' even if we played a video of it, because it is something unique to our culture.

27 minutes ago, FJK said:

Are you implying that those who disagree with you are wrong and they must come to your way of thinking, come to you, to be right?

I think that is a dangerous thing to be doing if that is what you are meaning.  Correct me if I am wrong about what you are meaning.

Nope, that is not what I am saying, at all.  But I am saying there is a correct way to interpret the Bible, and I will add that it is not 'my way' of thinking.  I am also saying that those who are born again and saved who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit have a helper in understanding the Bible.

(ESV) John 14:26 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

14 minutes ago, FJK said:

The Bible can be read is such a manner that it means anything anyone wants it to mean according to there desires.

This is the popular thing to do today, just interpret it to mean what you want it to to justify your personal wishes (otherwise there wouldn't be so much contentious disagreement among Churches and Christians as is even evident here on this forum.

Or you can skip all that basically irrelevant stuff as regards daily living as a Christian representing Christ on this earth and do the things it tells you to do, Jesus said you can do the things he did, even commanded it as such, do you do them?

Those I see doing them in real life are those I look to as knowing more than I do and seek to learn from them, others are really just a distraction from doing what Jesus told us to do.

This is how I see it.

The rules of Hermeneutics and allowing the Bible to speak to a person through the what the original authors meant to say (exegesis) will allow a person to arrive at the correct answer.  Most of all, it is the Holy Spirit within a person who has accepted the Gift of Salvation that helps a person to understand what they are reading. 

People who are still unsaved would struggle to understand the Bible (those without the Holy Spirit indwelling them), and Earthy interpretations.  That is where the difference in interpretations come in.  

Notice this scripture about those born again an saved, understanding:

1 John 2:27  (NLT) But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

18 minutes ago, FJK said:

I didn't misquote it, I didn't give a scriptural reference, just the gist of what was said.

If the Bible doesn't mean the same thing every time the same  term is used, then the Bible needs to be revised to make it more consistent and understandable, otherwise it just becomes mystical stuff that means whatever the reader wants it to mean according to his desire at the time.

Something I'm thinking about, something that is important in relation to Jesus saying not to allow ourselves to be deceived (and knowing that deceptions can be either very complex or very simple in nature, as a con artist can use both a short or long con to accomplish his goal so can Satan).

You can read the Bible and allow it to speak to you, or you can inject your own opinions or biases into it.  It is the difference between eisegesis, and exegesis which are two conflicting ways to read the Bible.  One is the correct way, and one is not.

2 hours ago, FJK said:

A question, if a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to the Lord then how long were the first 7  days?

When you take a passage written in a different context and topic, and try to apply it to something like the time-table for evolution theory, you will always get the wrong answer. 

To begin, you misquoted it:

2 Peter 3:8 (KJV) But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Then you have ignored the context about Jesus being away.  That is what is being talked about. If you read the whole passage it mentions a time when scoffers will come and claim that the Lord Jesus will never return, as promised, because he has not already returned in all these long years.  The idea Peter is trying to convey is that God's time-table is not like ours, and that both a thousand years and a day are a tiny amount of time that make no difference to Him.  

Peter is saying that God will return on His own time table, Peter is not saying that when the Bible says a day, it means a thousand years or trillions. 

Don't say that you believe in Evolution Theory, and then go looking for hints of it in the Bible taking just one line that you think acknowledges it.  That is called an a priori fallacy in the first place, and in the second place, the Bible will tell you what it means if you read it in the proper context.  That means read all of 2 Peter 3, not just one sentence from it.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How can one be in agreement with Bible believing Christians when many of the significant events in the Bible are written off as allegory?  How does one see only a portion of a verse and ignore the last sentence where it is made clear that the evening and the morning were one day?  How does one propose a local flood on low lying ground with easy access to the sea?  How does one give the identical arguments to those posted on atheist websites and yet proclaim the salvation of Christ?  Why would someone spend his time trying to convince Christians that their Bible is not true?

Yes. 

And why build a large boat and pack it with animals for a 'local flood' when a solution to that 'crisis' would be to lead the animals away from the area on a short walk? 

49 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You seriously don't know?   Really?

Do you object to the argument?  Your postings do match a pattern, and I think you have to admit you rarely agree with anyone about anything.  I don't think it is possible to disagree so often, normally.      

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You lose any debate when you turn to insults.  It's the weakest argument of all.

How was that an insult?  I said you were not one.

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No YEC has ever had the power to do so.   You might was well endorse Bahai for never murdering millions.

As I showed you, Darwin's great discovery was that evolution isn't random.   But here you've confused evolution with the origin of life, yet again.   I showed you that Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. 

I don't blame you for reacting to the racist foundations of YEC.  But blaming others for that racism won't change the facts. 

It's a little scary to be reminded that YE creationists avoid murder only because they fear God's retribution.    Most of us avoid it because we know it's evil.   No "evolutionist" I know of would agree with your ethical standards.

Because he agreed with people like YE creationist founder Henry Morris that some humans were genetically inferior to others.    Morris only wanted them to be servants of whites, of course.    Hitler took the idea to its logical conclusion.

You are so mixed up about this one wonders if you simply post deliberately provocative messages for no other reason than to cause maximum disruption and argument in a thread, since your arguments rarely make sense.  I doubt whether you care if you are right or wrong about your arguments when you post them.

Coincidentally, trolls have that exact habit, not that you are one.

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You cannot acknowledge that it was people who accepted electricity that murdered millions.    As I said, a little reading in logic could explain the error you made.

You just cannot acknowledge that it was Hitler, following Martin Luther's advice, who murdered millions, as well as Stalin, who banned Darwin's teachings from the Soviet Union.

As you learned, Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan debunked the racist ideas of Nazis and YE creationists.   Do I need to show you again?

It is true that if Hitler or Stalin had accepted Darwinian theory, it would have made no difference to their behavior, as it was motivated by hatred, not science.    Likewise, YE creationists like ICR co-founder Henry Morris would still likely have declared that blacks were meant to be servants of other people, even if he understood the science.

I realize many or most of today's YE creationists have rejected the racist foundation of their ideas.  But the fact remains.

Even if every single YE Creationist was a racist, which cannot be established, no YEC murdered millions.  It's the evolutionists who did, and the atheists and Catholics.

It makes sense that the evolutionist did the murdering since people who believe they were brought here from primordial soup, and not God, would find it easy to destroy life since life is random.  They would reason we are just slightly smarter animals than say, a zebra, and so they would reason that murder is not wrong.  They would murder millions without guilt, and that seems to be exactly what happened based on the evidence.  Hitler thought his murdering was a good thing, and helpful to his racist cause.

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As you learned, neither Hitler nor Stalin accepted Darwinian theory.    But I'd be open to your evidence that the others did.    BTW, they also likely accepted gravity.    Should we shun anyone who believes gravity is a fact?

I'm thinking that you might do with a refresher on logic.

Just pointing out the obvious.  Saying evolution or electricity or gravity, or any other phenomenon is evil, because evil people realized these things exist is well, illogical.   Do you see why?

To put a finer point on it, about 90% of Hitler's Final Solution for Jews was found in Martin Luther's  The Jews and Their Lies.  At the Nuremberg trials, defendants used it as a defense.

You think we should blame Protestants for murdering millions of Jews?    Some of them did, but it's not something we can blame them for now.

You just cannot acknowledge that it was evolutionists that murdered millions.  Catholics had that problem as well, but so far no YEC Creationists murdering movement.