I was working with a seismic monitoring company and also studying volcanology (self) and the work of an etymology scholar who was a friend of the family back in the day. The three things combined in my head and I thought " I wonder", so I got out my Bible. I'd like to try out my findings here and see what you think.

I am going to copy and paste excerpts of what I wrote in a religious forum to guage their reactions. It may be a bit choppy this way, I apologise but I don't want to rewrite it all at the moment. I also apologise for any spelling errors or words written sideways and backwards..I had a head injury a while ago and it seems to effect my writing ability. Don't worry I did the translations before the injury. LOL I'm just posting a very small fraction of the information that I have. If I can find a ghostwriter to help, I want to write a book and get this published. Please note, the Bible is layered. the second layer is the astrological, the third is the attention device. I am translating the first layer which are the creation stories. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'd appreciate some honest feedback.


When translated and interpreted correctly, the Bible reads nothing like anyone thinks it does. There are no contradictions and the timeline for creation until now matches up to the geological records. Basically I proved the Bible. ( I am using the word "proved" as in made it match up to known geological data ) Unfortunately, not the way the religious sects would want me to prove the Bible as it would nullify their belief systems as they stand. If I published this, finally all religions would have something in common. Their hatred of me. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists... I'd be the most hated person on the planet by anyone of religion. I've been debating about publishing my findings but am not sure if I want the grief. I've shown my work to a choice few people and we are all in agreement that this translation is correct.

What it did to me on a personal leval...well at first I felt like a complete idiot. I'd read the Bible before and never seen it. Once you see the correct translation you know that you should have seen it before. Kind of like staring in the fridge trying to find the milk, not seeing it, then your 5 year old comes up and grabs the milk from right in front of you. It's that obvious. We've all been programmed to see the bible in a certain way from birth. I felt so stupid.

I used a translation method that to my knowledge has never been used before. If it had, it would have been published long ago. I am familiar with the mistranslations that have been found using traditional methods. They are accurate but do not go back far enough to truly open the window on the Bible. I believe the stories of the Bible have been around since before writing began. They were told by oral tradition and when the first writing developed, they were recorded. I took the translations farther back than the oldest known writings. I translated them as they would have appeared in the beginning stages of written record. Ok now it's going to get more choppy, remember I am on another message board and just copying.


The thing about whom/what God created first. Here's the deal. "man" is an incorrect translation/interpretation. The word "man" in the Bible came into being later. When writing first began, vowels did not exist. They were added later for the sake of pronunciation and distinction. The original writing was " MN". Back in the day, the characters MN ( in all ancinet languages ) were short for "mountain" which was usually symbolic of Volcanoes. MN literally translating to "all matter liquid and solid." That would be magma/lava as applied to the earth but they also denoted the sun as being the same as magma. God is magma, the house of God is the volcano.Ever wonder why God's weapon of choice is fire and brimstone ? (brimstone being sulpher, a key componant of volcanoes.) Ever wonder about all the burnt offerings on the mountain ?The bible actually says that "all matter" was created. Not "man" as commonly believed.

To see this you only need go to Exodus although there are references in every book of the Bible, particularly the Old testament. I am going to use English King james as that is the Bible most are familiar with. Keep in mind what a volcano actually does. Remember Mt. St. Helen's. Look at these scriptures from a geological standpoint.

Exodus 19:9

And the Lord said unto Moses "Low, I come unto thee in a thick cloud..."


Exodus 19:16

and it came to pass on the third day in the morning,

that there were thunders and lightnings,

and a thick cloud upon the mount,

and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud:

so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.


Exodus 19:18

and mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke,

because the Lord descended upon it in fire;

and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace,

and the whole mount quaked greatly."


19:22 and let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, [B]lest the Lord break forth upon them.[/B]


Deuteronomy 4:10

Specially the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God, in Horeb (Mt. Sinai) when the Lord said unto me, "Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. 4:11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. 4:12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, [B]but saw no similitude[/B]; only ye heard a voice.

Deuteronomy 9:3

Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.

Judges 5:4

Lord, when thou wentest out of Se’ir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped water. 5:5 The mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from before the Lord God of Isreal.


Ok you get the point. Ever studied the geomorphology of the Sinai penninsula ? It's very interesting.

Personally my goal is to seek [B]truth[/B] first. I do now believe in the God of the Bible and I now understand why people are to "fear" him. The God of the Bible is the magma of a volcano. Basically the bible is about Volcano worship. [B]BUT[/B] man has abstract thinking capability and turned it into something more.

Here is another good one. This is not out of disrespect for anyone. I respect all opinions and appreciate them. This is simply information from my discovery.

2 Samuel 22:2 & Psalms 18

And he said, [B]The Lord is my rock[/B], and my fortress, and my deliverer; 22:3 [B]The God of my rock[/B]; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. 22:4 I will call on the Lord, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies. 22:5 When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid; 22:6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me; 22:7 In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: [B]and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears. 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth. 22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and the fire out of his mouth devoured: Coals were kindled by it. 22:10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. 22:11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 22:12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. 22:13 Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled. 22:14 The Lord thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice. 22:15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them. 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, and the blast of the breath of his nostrils.[/B]

Mark: Jesus was the son of man.

Matthew and Luke: Jesus was the Son of God.

John: Jesus was God himself.

The word "Christ" originated in Egypt and as I have said before vowels did not exist in the earliest writings. In Egypt it was written KRST ( yes I am translating into modern characters) and was adopted into greek where the K was replaced by a C and later given an H. Literally translated, the word means "crust" and " encrustation" and " the encrustation of life into matter" The same etymology can be seen in the words crystal and chrysalis.

God is magma.
Jesus is the crust that forms from the magma/lava.
Jesus is the son of God.

get it ?

Jesus was born to Mary. The etymology of Mary is MR which was the word used to denote water. Hence " Mer" which means "ocean" or "sea" . "mermaid". "marine" etc..Jesus (the crust) was born into a body of water that had never had land before. Hence the virgin birth. ( submarine volcano created new land )

This is a creation story that has been told for eons, before writing even developed. back in the day, the priests would characterize the stories so they were more memorable to the people, most of whom could not read. It was common practice to revamp the stories every few generations to match up to popular figureheads of the time in order to keep the people's interest in the stories and ensure the survival of the creation stories. This is why you find the same stories with different characters in many religions covering many timelines.

The Christ story is about the birth of a landmass. Jesus is the same character as Joshua of the old testament. It's just told differently there by a different story teller. Joshua is also "the crust". "cross" is also a derivative of KRST/CRST/CHRST. The first offshoot of the word "cross" being "crux" hence "crucifix". ( I am leaving a lot of detail out here for the sake of the book I am going to write ) This is why Christ is associated with the cross. Same word, so the cross now symbolizes his character.

Jesus is the son of God. The crust of the earth is made of magma.
Jesus is the son of man. Remember MN is "all matter liquid and solid". magma. The crust is the son of magma (God )from a submarine ( mary ) volcano ( the house of God )

Jesus was the original landmass that later broke into the continents we have today. ( which can also be seen in the story of Abraham and the tower of babel. )

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ? I tell you, Nay, but rather division: 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three.

"Who or what determines what is wicked and what is just? "

For the record, the word "wicked" actually means " the lit ones". It is speaking of other active volcanoes. Ever wonder why hell has so much fire and brimstone ? Brimstone being sulphur that is thrown from volcanoes....

These are just creation stories and geological predictions of the future.

Views: 19

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Hebrew word for man is MN?

Who knew?
No. MN is "all matter liquid and solid", gwbwerally used to denote mountains. ( volcanoes )It's a universal translation, not specifically Hebrew. I'll have to explain it more in depth in the morning.


The part about the Hebrew manuscripts being written without vowels is true.

But I'm pretty sure you're mixing your English letters with your Hebrew letters.

Universal translation?


Maybe the excitement surrounding your revelations will be enough to make some ignore the flawed logic.

Claims of special or unique knowledge hidden to all others are nothing new. The problem is that those making such claims can never keep the knowledge hidden. They must share it with others. But then it's no longer so special or unique. So then new claims are made, possibly even contradicting the previous ones. The important thing is to maintain your position as the holder of the secrets. Your followers, being human and having brains, may doubt the veracity of some of your claims, especially when they observe blatant internal contradictions. You explain that the contradictions aren't really contradictions at all, but rather clarifications. The light is always getting brighter- you are the one true source of the light. You dismiss those unable to swallow the "clarifications" as unworthy of the "truth" or too prideful to accept it. You'll lose some followers. But not to worry. Those that are emotionally invested in the cult of Krystal will stick with you, not wanting to be considered unworthy or prideful. You reward these with praise for their loyalty to the "truth". This positive reinforcement is well received and encourages even greater resistance to questions about your authenticity. You've let your people know that you love them but you've also warned them about the disastrous consequences of independent thought. Why would they ever dream of separating themselves from the light?

I know it all too well.

If this is parody, it's brilliant.
Sorry, Krystal, but I'm afraid I can't follow this.
"When translated and interpreted correctly, the Bible reads nothing like anyone thinks it does."

Okay, so that excludes everyone.

"I'd read the Bible before and never seen it."

Umm.... beginning to form an opinion...

"I took the translations farther back than the oldest known writings."

So you've got translations further back than there were writings?

Um... Okay...

Krystal said: I've shown my work to a choice few people and we are all in agreement that this translation is correct.

Who are these 'choice few people' Krystal and what are their qualifications?

Your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever - although I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you. I am sorry to say it but I have seen this kind of 'reasoning' elsewhere - it is very familiar to me - and it comes from a highly intelligent, but not very mentally well friend of mine. To him it all seems crystal clear - to those of us without a mental impairment, not so much. You may have to accept that you have a particular view of the world that is simply not going to be intelligible to many.

Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask some questions.

You say you have 'translated' the Bible. What did you translate from? From Hebrew? From Greek? Or did you not 'translate' but simply reinterpret from an English edition of the Bible?

What texts did you work from? Are you basing your etymological interpretation on the KJV, because that's useless - it has nothing to do with the original texts. Do you have access to ancient texts?

Do you speak Greek? Aramaic? Ancient Hebrew? If you want to do what you think you've done, you would need to be fluent in all of these languages and have access to, at least, the earliest texts available. Sadly, I believe these are generally only available to legitimate, properly trained, scriptural scholars. I'm guessing that this doesn't describe you.

Even if you did have access to such texts, your project cannot work because neither you, nor anyone else, has access to any of the original texts of the Bible so you can't know what was originally written. Moreover, you don't know what was left out and subsequently lost, and those omissions may completely change the meaning of what remains to us. So, you cannot truthfully claim to have taken 'the translations farther back than the oldest known writings' and 'translated them as they would have appeared in the beginning stages of written record' - there is simply not enough information available for anyone to do that - no matter how brilliant they are - or think they might be.

If you really want feedback on this, may I suggest you find a Professor of Theology at a nearby campus and see if they'll discuss it with you. I'm pretty sure they'll say much the same thing as I have. I'm sorry.
Ok I was being too simplistic in my explanations. I thought it would be easier for a wider variety of people this way. The logic is'n flawed only my wording which unfortunately is subject to the state of my brain now as opposed to when I did the work. I have a difficult time explaining things now. I'm also trying not to give too much away. No, I don't have to be fluent in all the old languages, only their characters and sounds, at least to do what I am doing. When I said farther back than writing I meant farther back than the writing of the scriptures, not writing in general. It's kind of like using latin to decipher the meaning of of our modern words through root derivatives. It could be that I'm a complete moron but I don't know, others have seen the work and have seen the point and agreed, but they have seen the actual work, not me fumbling with my brain on the internet unsure what to post and no longer having the brain to do it aptly. No, I don't want to say who they are simply because I don't have their permission. I was going to ask them to comment if I ever got it put together for publication. Oh and I am using the etymological work of Alvin Boyd Kuhn and Robert J Titus. Since the brain damage, this could be a futile attempt for me. I might have to pass it on to my daughter. ( for anyone who does'nt know the story, see my introduction thread) She is eager to see the work published but at the moment is working and in college and has a child, so has little time. Perhaps for the state of my brain I should write this in the style of Dr. Suess eh ?LOL It's not all based on translation, much of what I have is is geological, mathmatical, and planetary physics in relation to the places mentioned in the bible and ancient symbolism. If I can't even get the wording right to describe the translations though, the rest is a moot point as well. It's possible I could turn it into fiction but would still needs help writing. This blows. LOL I used to be a published magazine writer.

Can you tell me one thing. In the scriptures I have quoted here, tell me if you can see these being used to describe a volcano. Especially a volcano that is being worshipped. I at least chose the correct scriptures to quote for this purpose did'nt I ?

But all in all... this is what I wanted to find out. Can I pull this off in the state my brain is in ? The answer seems to be "no". That is precisely what I needed to know. I thank you all for your time.
Krystal: These are just creation stories and geological predictions of the future.

Yeah, OK. But when do the UFOs come into it ?
I knew I was forgetting a key componant ! Blast ! Where were you when I needed you grogan ? ;)

Maybe I'll go into cartooning, for 3 yr. olds. There has to be something an X genius can do in the world.
"The original writing was " MN". Back in the day, the characters MN ( in all ancinet languages ) were short for "mountain" [...]" MN corresponds to "man" and "mountain" in english well; I find it too conspicuous that the correspondence would exist in multiple other languages at the same time as each other. Please explain yourself on this. And I DO mean for you to post some gobbledygook that I might not be able to read and that my browser might not even be able to render unless it's in the format of simply being a picture file of the vowelless text from these Semitic languages, identifying the words that they are and the consonants that are written.

Just the same, the correspondence between "Christ" and "crust" is too good to be true. Literally. Could you be a dear and be a scientist here and bring some evidence? That is: evidence of Christ being KRST is Egypt and of the egyptian KRST being carried over to Greece where it just happened to sound like their term for "anointed one".

And evidence for this "wicked" equalling "the lit ones" thing, too. As "wickéd" in English (minus the accenst mark, which I've used for pronunciative clarity) is spelled the same as what is pronounced "wick'd"--having a wick, which naturally can be lit--I find it, again, an improbably coincidence for this to be true.

There is, indeed, precedent for bringing other languages that your audience will not be familiar with into one's works. I cite Jan Gullberg's Mathematics from the Birth of Numbers as a key example. The author starts off the book with a look at the concepts of numbers and counting over many disparate human cultures. He provides examples from Maori, Welsh, German and other languages, and even includes simple pronunciation guide with some of these so that you can say them (in addition to, naturally, providing translations when necessary, as for the Welsh children's number-rhyme).

Taking your audience into account in your writings does not mean keeping everything below their mouth and nose; it means that anything over their head mustn't be enough to drown them. With enough understanding on the part of the author, even a total idiot can read through a book on a difficult topic.
I'm no Biblical scholar or ancient linguist. But I do know that the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew and that, in this language, 'man' is אש spelled 'ish' today and pronounced 'eesh'. Adam אָדָם‎, - also means man.

The words for mountain are rr or rrh - pronounced har or harar. Shaddai is an alternative word for mountain.

There doesn't seem to be much relationship between 'ish' 'Adam' and 'har', 'harar' or 'shaddai' - vowels or no vowels. There is also absolutely no relationship whatsoever between MN and any of these words.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service