i need help with this math problem

[iamsoandso]

 

[iamsoandso]

i included the word now to the link,,,so i went ahead to "post image",,,you can use this to compare this mans style or writing to determine if it,,aleph,theta,sigma,,,and how he writes nu,omikron ,upsilon,,,ect.

 

[iamsoandso]

that was supposed to be a.h. book 1,chapter three,2.9 "iota and eta",,,i type bad i know im sorry,,

 

[kenisyes]

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/papyri/vol66/150dpi/pls7-8bk.jpg,,,,,,,,,now then the "iota,,a.h.chapter 3.2.9" was changed on purpose,,,the eta is the "higher case eta",,which is "proceeding" i.e. in your list row #2 =,,"eta,chi,iota,stigma" eta is strong's 706 and 142,,"arithmos" but notice they the gnostics also as irenaeus states they changed "both",,,,your greek is way better than mine "im a kinder gardener",,if you notice looking at the writing each time the writer picks up his pen,and after he dips it then set's it back down "where he puts it down makes a circular mark,right where he sets it down",but when he picks it up(the pen is drying out)and it leaves a fine line(hard to see) but it looks to me as if over "eta" line two the pen was drying out and so the infrared barely shows the "RaNoY",,he sets the pen down above"aleph?" when he put the nomina sacra,,but he wrote the word first,,when he made the N shape he set the pen down,went up,down and to the right,picked the pen up set it down and went down to make the letter "nu".i put a link at the top(i think),,there are 12 pieces of papyrus 115 i ceep looking at "noy"as i call it he repeats it in other words in the same text but this is the only place where he uses nomina sacra,so given his religion i suppose he is denoting "higher level of knowledge" with nomina sacra.

The link is not opening correctly. I went back from the home page and got to it that way. It is so fragmented, it is of little help to what I am proposing we do here. you posted the picture anyway.

Arithmos does not have an eta in it. My problem with this is that not only have they changed the 666 to 616, but have changed the text in front of it. Our text reads "arithmos auto 666" (number his 666).

The movement of the pen may be the cause, but it could be something in the infrared restoration. I don't think we know all that much about the infrared method yet.

My problem is that I can't match our Greek text with theirs, and the other fragments are too few to give me any more clues. The success at matching most of 2, 3,4 and 6 tell me that the piece of parchment is not misplaced by Oxford. The lack of success at 1 and 5 suggests they have changed other words in the text. Moreover, I wonder if the line above 616 is intended to be a lower line around NoY, thus enclosing that in a box. "Nous" is perhaps the single most important Gnostic concept of all, as they replace relationship with Jesus with mental (nous in Greek) knowledge about Jesus. The word is in the text "let him who has understanding" just where it should be. Maybe, he is just emphasizing it for his readers? our text here reads "echon ton noun" - "has the understanding". I can't read anything before the ra in front of the nou, so I can't guess what they might have changed it to.

 

[kenisyes]

,,,exactly now you are on the correct path.,,,,but me and you are not yet seeing the same thing,that is i said "iota eta",then you replied and said "no its not eta",,,then i sad "gan"ect.ect,,,and it seemed off base again,,,,you had the post before it posted "this is the whole text" and gave it,,,but at the end you said "then should we not be discussing valentinus?",,,so i thought we were at that time thinking the same. so let us regroup,,,you are only looking at a.h.bk.5.29,,,,,,,so far from the beginning of the post till now i have quoted text to you from a.h.bk 1 chapters 1,2,3,,,,and a.h.bk.5.29,,,and the letter to the phillipians by polycarp,,,go to a.h.bk 1 and review ch.1,2,3, and then you will understand why i am saying things that in one post seem correct and the next not.,,,,in a.h.ch.3.2.9 "iota eta",,and then look back at what you are "translating" and you will see why they changed these,,,,

Let me see if I can straighten this out. Greek I is called iota. It is written as our I, except lower case lacks the dot above. Greek has two letters for our E. Short E is called epsilon and is written capital as our E, and small, as a c with a cross line. Long E is called Eta, and capital is our H, and small is our n with a small extension to the lower right. [Greek small n is written as our v. Greek has no v, so the confusion stops there.) I see a lot of eastern philosophy in what Iranaeus describes. Kaballah has a similar system of generation, and the idea that I and H generate 18 components sounds a little like i-ching to me. You could move the components of the letters around on top of each other, turning sideways for different combinations. Maybe this is what the Eta is doing before the 616. That might explain the extra stroke.

I need to go. I'll come back in an hour or so.

 

[iamsoandso]

did you read page 4 of the forum? i am quoting to you from a.h.book 1 ch.3.2.9,,,,,you are working the Greek correctly,,,but iota and eta are in line three and are not suppose to be i explained it on the page before this in this forum page4,,,you just need to see why eta ,chi,iota,stigma is in line three,,,look at irenaeus against heresies book one chapter 3.2.9,,,,,,and you will have the reason why.,,,,,,,read page 4 of this post,,,"youve almost got it",,

 

[iamsoandso]

2. The production, again, of the Duodecad of the Æons, is indicated by the fact that the Lord was twelve Luke 2:42 years of age when He disputed with the teachers of the law, and by the election of the apostles, for of these there were twelve. Luke 6:13 The other eighteen Æons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months after His resurrection from the dead. They also affirm that these eighteen Æons are strikingly indicated by the first two letters of His name [᾿Ιησοῦς], namely Iota and Eta. And, in like manner, they assert that the ten Æons are pointed out by the letter Iota, which begins His name; while, for the same reason, they tell us the Saviour said, One Iota, or one tittle, shall by no means pass away until all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18
this is the verse i am quoting.....notice he says both,,,,,,,he(irenaeus) says they changed both they wrote "eta instead of arithmos,chi,iota,stigma",,,,,,,,,now look at the manuscript it says,,,,,,,,"eta,chi,iota,stigma",,,,,,,,,
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat005.htm#verse18

 

[iamsoandso]

that is they did not only change 666 to 616 they also changed the word arithmos to eta,,,,,,,,,

 

[kenisyes]

The problem with what you say is that the word before 666 is not arithmos, it is autou, "his". If they changed autou to IH, the text would read, the number of the aeons is 616. We can't read what comes before the H, to see if it an I or not.

Let's suppose this is what they said: the number of the beast is the number of man and the aeons is 616, or some such thing. Can we explain anything like that to make it make sense?

 

[iamsoandso]

The problem with what you say is that the word before 666 is not arithmos, it is autou, "his". If they changed autou to IH, the text would read, the number of the aeons is 616. We can't read what comes before the H, to see if it an I or not.

Let's suppose this is what they said: the number of the beast is the number of man and the aeons is 616, or some such thing. Can we explain anything like that to make it make sense?

the word before 666 is "is" not his and if you research the words written in "italics" which in this instance is "is",,it did not appear in the original manuscripts so the word that should be in front of 666 is "arithmos",or should be but they changed it to "eta",,,

 

[kenisyes]

the word before 666 is "is" not his and if you research the words written in "italics" which in this instance is "is",,it did not appear in the original manuscripts so the word that should be in front of 666 is "arithmos",or should be but they changed it to "eta",,,

The Greek Textus Receptus reads "pseephisatoo ton arithmon tou theriou arithmos gar anthroopou estin kai 'o arithmos autou 666". Word by word: count the number (of) the beast number for man is and the number his 666". The textus receptus is considered the best text. Is = estin, auto = his. Are you saying other manuscripts have a different word order?

 

[iamsoandso]

no.my point was as to establish between us that according to irenaeus they both change "eta" and "iota" in this manuscript this Alexandrian common keone greek(i know you knew that but for my reason i state it),,thextus erasmus c from textus receptus atated the number as six hundred sixteen,,written in greek words. also though in textus reseptus the end of revalations,and other verses were forced back to the latin vulgate text.latin much like spanish at times states things in a reversed order. i had not thought of that,,,after researching rev.13;18 is one of the revisions made to agree "with the church fathers"(irenaeus),so it reflects 666. but you raise a good point it would change the word they changed with "eta" so then we need to figure out which.,,,let me say this i agree with the rendering of 666 over 616 which is mostly my point of beginning this thread. in my opinion changing eta and iota was an "intended act" on the part of the gnostics to manipulate the book to fit their beliefs. it was found years ago but was first put on the www in 2005 and in 7 years it has spread everywhere. at first i didn't know how to see it 616 but about 5 years ago i began to research it,that's when i first saw the a.h. letters and then realized the "john,polycarp,irenaeus"connection,early church fathers that is john trusted polycarp and polycarp trusted ireneus. i at first thought like you said "wonder why he thought 616" was needed instead.im not sure how much of the "against heratic's" you have read but valentinas and the others seemed to blend greek gods together with ours(my take on it),they believed that Christ was first spirit,then Messiah(flesh)then he would return in his other form(man of sin). so which is why they manipulate his name into 616. researching gnostics the branch valentinas was from was from Paul was preaching to the gentiles,remember he used the gods to explain the temple of the unknown god to them. he then several times made comment "they went out from us to show they were not of us",then he said "some say i am of Paul,some i am of peter ect.",,,that is they"gnostics"..now Paul was not teaching that as we know. anyhow that's my take on why they were changing these scriptures they simply mistook what Paul was trying to tell them.i think this because of what peter said about Paul he said he was "teaching things hard to be understood(deep)," i dont think he disagreed with Paul,he knew he was preaching to gentiles,so he warned about a spirit of strong delusion(gnostism i believe),,but i think we agree on that irenaeus stated they changed both eta and iota but you make me curious now "which word did they change?",,,there is another reason why i stated "one of the reasons i started the thread" the other is "I" feel that i can trust john,polycarp,irenaeus,,,,,that is these were his teachers so not sure if you noticed that reading "against herasies" quite often irenaeus says what they were doing and then states "instead of",,,that is we have this is wrong,this is right,,,,,,,so if we add up all the "instead of's",,and bear in mind the but dont do's,,,"irenaeus is telling us how john told polycarp who tought him "how to really count it"

 

[iamsoandso]

ill be back tomorrow maybe later tonight,,i cannot read ah to much in one sit in i am christian so it bothers me but i do realize it's important,goodnight

 

[kenisyes]

I think you are right on the money. There would be places where things would be changed to I and H, simply to advance their own position. I have a deeper question, and what you are researching may be of help solving it. What was their theological position? Iranaeus is clearly biased, and reporting his mainline views.

My understanding is that the gnostics started out as the Egyptian Christian church. They attempted to reexplain the gospels in the light of ancient Egyptian understanding. I don't really see much heresy before 60 or 70 AD, and then only spotty until maybe 150. Historically, all of Egyptian understanding was suppressed by the Roman Church. Not only did the they burn what was left of the Library at Alexandria, but also forbade the teaching of the Egyptian language (I have heard under penalty of death). That's why we needed a Rosetta stone to learn to read it again. Thanks to Barry Fell, we now know that someone had taught the American Micmac Indians Egyptian writing during the banned period, so somehow, a "secret sect" had survived. I want to know if there was anything revealed to the Egyptian Christian church that comes from God and not from Valens, etc. I know for a fact that it was reading hieroglyphics that helped us find Mt. Sinai, and it also tells who Kainan is (compare Luke's geneology with the original in Genesis - Luke adds a name). The discovery of a whole piece of the Coptic church, whole and functioning with worship, fellowship, theology, and everything else, when helicopters made access possible in the 1930's, was considered a major piece of archeological progress at the time. There is something missing from our understanding of Scripture, and I'd love to find it.

Part of the knowledge may be in the answers to questions like why 616, and why change the specific words they did.

 

[iamsoandso]

I think you are right on the money. There would be places where things would be changed to I and H, simply to advance their own position. I have a deeper question, and what you are researching may be of help solving it. What was their theological position? Iranaeus is clearly biased, and reporting his mainline views.

My understanding is that the gnostics started out as the Egyptian Christian church. They attempted to reexplain the gospels in the light of ancient Egyptian understanding. I don't really see much heresy before 60 or 70 AD, and then only spotty until maybe 150. Historically, all of Egyptian understanding was suppressed by the Roman Church. Not only did the they burn what was left of thttp://webmail.netzero.net/?r=inboxhe Library at Alexandria, but also forbade the teaching of the Egyptian language (I have heard under penalty of death). That's why we needed a Rosetta stone to learn to read it again. Thanks to Barry Fell, we now know that someone had taught the American Micmac Indians Egyptian writing during the banned period, so somehow, a "secret sect" had survived. I want to know if there was anything revealed to the Egyptian Christian church that comes from God and not from Valens, etc. I know for a fact that it was reading hieroglyphics that helped us find Mt. Sinai, and it also tells who Kainan is (compare Luke's geneology with the original in Genesis - Luke adds a name). The discovery of a whole piece of the Coptic church, whole and functioning with worship, fellowship, theology, and everything else, when helicopters made access possible in the 1930's, was considered a major piece of archeological progress at the time. There is something missing from our understanding of Scripture, and I'd love to find it.

Part of the knowledge may be in the answers to questions like why 616, and why change the specific words they did.

yes "james r. harris" is who you refer to he researched languages from "old negev",comparing them to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. his book is called "names of god" and is very informative old negev hieroglyphics were written from "a starting point" and then proceeded in a circular pattern outward",,,the similar "name" was "yah",,,,in pro Canaanite then old negev it is written as this,,,"a shape like a doughnut(ra),then a seven branched tree drawn above it",,,this now is a remarkable advance in theology i believe,that is if god revealed himself to man in "one spot",,figure 1000 miles of walking per generation,slang being introduced into their language ect.the story separates there though some "am. Indians " say they came up,from the ground where they dwelt with the
ant people"???,,,in pueblo colo. where the name "jah" was found they say the origin was from a star shooting across the sky that they hid from. but "names of god by james r. harris",,,very interisting,,

 

[kenisyes]

Barry Fell documents a copy of the Lord's Prayer written by Jesuit missionaries from Holland to the Indians of Maine in 1600+ AD. The copy was obtained from Holland, where it had been for several centuries. He writes the Lord's prayer in Egyptian hieroglyphics under it and it is most striking.

Mormonism I think, owes a lot of its start to the work of a British Major stationed in the American colonies in the mid-1700's. He produced a remarkable book documenting Hebrew words and customs identical in Five-Nation Iroquois and Hebrew.

Possibly related, only three languages in history use determinants (extra hieroglyphic signs added to words to illustrate what classification a word was, like "man", "bird", "chair", etc.). The languages are Sumerian, Egyptian and Mayan. Sumerian and Egyptian borrowed heavily from each other, but where did Mayan get it?

The real problem with any of these, as with the old negev and the southwest Indian tree story with the four earths (similar to the four Hindu yugas), is how did they get across the ocean?

Immanuel Velikovsky traces the American cowboy word Yahoo to an Pacific Northwest Indian legend: "in olden days, the sky was too close to the earth, so everyone was issued a long pole and told to push it back up, when the cry of 'yahoo' rang through the air." He believes this is God resonating the earth with the name "Yahweh" at Sinai.

Back to our problem. Can we determine what they saw in 616, that it relates to the 18 aeon system? The closest system I know is the 10 sephirot in the Kaballah. My Hebrew Gematria Dictionary gives two Hebrew equivalents that may be of value: hoham - spelled he-vav-he-mem sophit meaning "he will ruin them" and yom- spelled yod, vav, mem sophit - "day" as in "day of the Lord", "new day", etc. . Could ruination be an aeon?

 

[iamsoandso]

18 aeon?,,not sure unless i missed it. i notice searching for the books of irenaeus online there are several sources for it. in most they just begin at book one,others begin with the preface irenaeus wrote in his letters. in the preface he valentinus as the main subject. that is he was the one who had a school and taught gnostism. but then he explains later and then brakes it down in the later chapters that there were other branches that sprang off valentinus. i.e. Marcus,Simon mangus,ect..In the later chapters he shows that the branches "deviated in doctrine" that is "the doctrine valentinus was teaching,they modified as they spread out teaching". Markus(in later chapters) Irenaeus states would take certain names for instance sophia/wisdom and take s.o.p.h.i.a.,,,,and begin with the letter (s),(aleph in greek),,,and say other words/ names that began with these letters,then the second letter of the same ect.,,,"so it's infinite" according to the teaching of Marcus showing the infinite name of god.Marcus was also known to use "drugs" on his followers,as well as magic/tricks.Back to Valentinus, in the first chapter of book 1 A/H,,Irenaeus gives the explanation of the "aeons" as to the way "Valentinus" reckoned them. But in the preface he(Irenaeus) states that he spoke "a barbaric dialect because he was from the Keltae,irenaeus not valentinus,Irenaeus was Keltae. So then there are "many branches of the gnostics",,,lets narrow it down to "one".,,,,in the preface of against heresies book one irenaeus states,,,,,,,"I refer especially to the disciples of Ptolemaeus"who he also states is of the school of Valentinus,,,,notice irenaeus shows ownership of the changing of "iota and eta" to "potolemaeus",,,,who was of the school of valentinus,,,,,,so whose definition of aeon?,,aeon is Latin(proves the text this is from),,,aieon is greek,,eon,english,,,you knew it.But back to aeons definition,,"whose?",,,,irenaenus directs this "especially" to "Potolemaeus",,,who valentinus taught,,,,,that is potolemaeus is who changed "iota to eta",,,,,,,,,and so out of the fog of the branches it is his "definition of the aeons of the pleroma",,,,,,you are looking for in chapter 1.book 1 he states it in detail.,,,,,,,,,so who changed 666 to 616?,,"ptolemaeus",,,,,,

 

[kenisyes]

Everything you say is absolutely right. There may be so many variations, that the problem cannot be solved without more data. Even if Ptolomaeus changed 666 to 616, is he the one who put the eta by it? Even if he did that, is he the one who caused the theological framework of the Oxyrhnchus papyrus Book of Revelation?

We do the same in Christianity though. A critic might rightfully claim that "all in attempting to follow one Jesus, change doctrines willy nilly, and interpret the same Scriptures in a variety of ways." We do, of course. One says infant baptism, another says no. One says communion is a symbol, another that it is more. One says a bishop should lead, another a pastor, another elders, another an apostle. When I was a kid, we had a book of "Christian Doctrine Drills". Thank God I have forgotten them, but there used to be 7 of this and 3 of that, and 10 of the other, pages and pages of it, some Scriptural, most not. The difference of course is that there were no armies successful in destroying our denominations, so those books around for historians to look at. The gnostics were mostly destroyed. We simply don't have the books to sort through all the variations Iranaeus mentioned. Maybe the whole business about why is eta by 616 will have to wait for another garbage heap to be found that we can irradiate with ultra violet light.

 

[iamsoandso]

a.h.,,,book 5,chapter 3...TEITAN,,,show both the vowels,,three syllables,and the number,,,,,,,,,,"the vowels",,,,,

 

[kenisyes]

You mean 5.30. Teitan is a misspelling of Titan, spelled correcly in Greek the same as in English. Iranaeus appears to be saying that an older spelling is known to him. It is not known to Liddell-Scott. In any event, Iranaeus gives it as an example of 666, not of 616. The Greek spelling is tau=300 epsilon=5 iota=10 tau=300 alpha=1 nu=50. total=666. In any event, this requires epsilon, not eta for the e.