So, early in the video below the man claims he captured the US flag, among other things.
Now, I’ve long known of the gold fringed flag conspiracy theory and understood I could back it up in title IV USC, except, that wasn’t as throughout as I remembered, covers stars and stripes
But, watching the video the host gave a section under USC 36 to back up the theory, IA chapter 2
Never understood why people think they can save themselves from man with codes written by man? The less I know of all this “law” the freer I can feel… I know, it’s just a feeling.
It’s not misunderstood, a lot of work goes into figuring out how to bend a spoon that isn’t there
When Moses came off the mount with commandments from God would you guess many thought the same?
This guy, I know virtually nothing about, seems to operate on a different plane, very difficult to follow, similiar perhaps to Edison inventing a light bulb? Wright brothers flying? both after how many failures and both affecting society how much today??
One thing I picked up was he mentions Babylon and in what I deem reference to a system of confusing babble, revelation tells us of the day Babylon falls… this type of study could well lead to that.
Anyhow, I’d like someone to explain the missing code, seems it was there when he made the video, and yet, now ??
They already witnessed him with Gods power part the Red sea and were being led by a pillar of fire at night and cloud by day . They knew it was real but didnt care they were extremely humanistic and stiffnecked.. " the people rose up to play"
Dont know about code
When he says “get them to perform with the grammar,” it sounds like he is trying to return authorities to the plain text of the law. Sounds like a good thing.
But if I go back to the beginning of the video, he seems to mean something very different. He is trying to break words down into their elements to see how they are composed. And the way he is doing it doesn’t agree with the etymologies I see elsewhere. That means his whole theoretical foundation is subject to debate.
For example, he breaks down “independence” like so:
IN = no
DE = no
PEN = write
DE = no
ENCE = contract
That looks hand-wavy to me. Why are there there so many "no"s? And how is the suffix “ence” equal to contract? And does “pen” actually mean “write”? What’s stopping me from connecting it to an animal “pen” for example? Also, these elements have little to do with how we actually use the word and what it means.
How do today’s dictionaries break down “independence”? If you look up the etymology, it goes more like:
IN = negation
DEPEND = hanging, from Anglo-French DEPENDRE, from Latin DE- + PENDERE, where PENDERE is to weigh, estimate, pay, PONDUS weight
ENCE = state of being
That etymology seems more likely to be accurate to me. The idea of something hanging on something else shows the conditionality of something’s state, and this concept of “hanging” exists in many languages. In German, unabhaengig also means “independent,” but more literally breaks down as UN = negation, AB = onto, HAENG = hanging, IG = adjectival suffix. In Mishnaic Hebrew, talui literally means “hanging” but is legally used to mean “dependent” to show conditionality of one thing upon another, or that the state of something is pending some other event.
This guy is trying to break words down to extract lost meanings, but he’s getting confused (and confusing others) with false cognates. A false cognate is a word that sounds like another word with a completely different origin and meaning.
I think we agree that America has gone far afield from the Constitution legally, but the way this guy is trying to repair the breach is making an even bigger breach.
Forgive me but two quotes come to mind to share, the first
Meant to encourage you
I admit I did not watch the video through, rarely do when a video is so long, plus he begins dull and narcissistic, (IMO) I’d say based on what you wrote you’re doing well to dismiss his version of how independence breaks down and also say its good you’re aware of
as they do come up, etymology is a science and as its often based on either incomplete historical referenced or that of different nations
it’s a science that can be misleading or at least misinterpreted.
The second quote fits brilliantly into this discussion is based on
and I’ve reasoned hang to mean suspend.
In my view belief Jesus is the heir, as such He is now in control, He choose to suspend the law, as such our law is in each of our own hands, but it directs us to love one another and love God.
but the “in” means not dependent, so not depended on the law
Old English word for it was selfdom, a word akin to privilege and “not always distinguishable”
We have the privilege of self governance, but obligation to love our brethren.
I agree
and having began this back in 1999 with purported “militia” groups, though they self identified with resource and discernment, I had to walk away, I found one constant with all I’ve run across in this field of study, that often God was not first, I’ve seen where He was given space, to fit in, but not first
That seemed to lead to endless study
I’ve seen the opposite as well, where its only God, but no study
or, study which left out inconvenient or conflicting things, a must not IMO, if it’s there, then there must be a reason.
So, what do I take from the video?
Similar to where you began
Except I’d change your statement a bit
It is us that need to learn how to read.
This is why Jesus came, to teach us how to be free
It’s difficult enough for those who profess Christ, double so for a Jew
without the law, made..
Many retreat when the noise becomes to much, they try to silence it, I often seek to amplify it, run it double and triple,
one is original, one a cover, neither reaches the violent level I imagine, both void sufficient force
to that end I ask, what is a motion?
Rule 7 (b)(1)
what is force?
Is it “power to convince the mind”?
violent, an adjective, By late 14c. as “intense, extreme” in any respect, in reference to persons, natural phenomena.
Does etymology help without definitions or vice versa?
Motions of the mind ascribed to the invisible agency of the Supreme Being, are called good motions.
Can a motion from the mind ever convince the mind, would that be force?
Force, used as a noun, or, verb?
force(v.)
c. 1300, forcen, also forsen, “exert force upon (an adversary),” from Old French forcer “conquer by violence,”
Can a motion be violent force used to conquer?
whether you like the original, or the cover, can either be loud enough to wake the necessary level of EMOTION within you?
That’s not the way we use “x hangs on y”. If you said, “x suspends on y,” I would understand what you are trying to say, but it’s the wrong word.
Also, aside from the physical meaning “to dangle,” “suspend” has an additional meaning of “to cause to stop for a period; interrupt.” The word “hang” can’t be used that way; you don’t “hang” bus service, but you could “suspend” bus service.
If you check the list of translations of your verse from the original Greek, they variously translate the word as “hang” or “hangeth;” “depend,” “dependent,” or “dependeth;” “are based on,” “are variations on,” “come from,” “take their meaning from,” or “stem from.”
None of the translations use “suspend,” “stop,” “halt,” “rescind” or anything similar. If such meanings could fit with the original Greek, I’m sure there is some translation that would try to use it, because it is a Christian belief that the Jewish laws need not be practiced.[1] But they don’t translate that way here, and I can only presume that it’s because that meaning doesn’t linguistically fit.
talui is dependent, not independent
I was only bringing it to illustrate how different languages use the metaphor of “hanging” to show dependence or conditionals.
If you want an exact match for the purpose of translation, that exists in Mishnaic Hebrew as well: eyno talui. EYNO = it is not, TALUI = dependent, lit. hanging. Together, that’s how you would say “independent.” (Eyno talui is two words, since there is no agglutinative prefix for negation in Hebrew, unlike English which has in-, un-, a-, anti-, and non-. Instead, the common idiom in Hebrew is to have two words.)
EDIT: More than that, Jews believe that other nations were not commanded with the 613 Jewish laws at all, only with the 7 Noahide laws. We are not coming to take your foreskins! (Unless you want to. We know a guy… ) ↩︎
This is done using the 1828 and the 1611, not to many years apart, but etymologically we can still see
That’s not going to make a case for you as the 1611 is pretty much a class of it’s own comparatively, I had the “beyond 1888” (or similiar title) thread on FULL30 which covered that and I can do so again if necessary.
Why the large font?
I wasn’t arguing your word
That is as unlikely as a
and for the same reasons,
And I could come out and say it clear and still not be understood, so the attempt to pull it out is used, provoke thought, hunger and thirst.
It’s the same as no one counting the number of the beast as instructed, the number is given, 666, we’re told to count, 6+6+6, that nets 18, the number of a man by worldwide age of majority, legal contract/consent
so, count, hang, same thing.
If you’ve not watched the chosen, I recommend it, ironic, similiar opinion made here as in the Matrix
He is IMHO whacko .
