Leaderboard

[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 ṣifr, 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?]

[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.]