Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Journal: Getting the mormons off my case 1

Half of the previous submission was missing. I took a lot of care being sure I had gotten it right, so a repost. Think I'm trying to hard to get it right. Sorry.

In Kennewick, Washington when the mormons thinks they've found a child molester,
they throw the kid(s) under the bus and harass the person or victim as they have
become.

Maybe someone here can help me out, this has been going on 25 years.

My Son and I shared a bed, it was large and nobody was in anybody's way.
Everybody knew this, or those that needed to. The person directly behind me and I
didn't get alone all that well, and I quit talking to him. So he told anybody
that would listen I was molesting my son, I just ignored him, as it was easy to
explain away.

This went on for years, every weekend my Son would visit. The house was poorly
built and the walls paper thin, you hear people through them. Something I'm sure
the Dog Ugly Indian did, and heard us in the same room together being proof enough for
her.

I met the one Dog Ugly Indian getting my hair cut in a beauty parlor. She said "I love
cutting the hair on people like you", figured she was hitting on mm and never
heard another word she said. Trust me, I should have listened. She put axle grease
in my hair and a loop then quickly left, not two hairs the same length. I sat for
the longest time trying to figure out what had just happened.

After that encounter we (son and I) would be followed where ever we went, rear
neighbor telling them where we were going and what time. Asking them what's up
they'd say "what do you mean" - so quite trying. But mormons were accusing me of
molesting my son.

Kicked my son out of the bed on his birthday, saying he was too old to be
sleeping with me. He still wouldn't use his bedroom but slept in the living room
on the couch. He was lonely, so invited a friend from where he lived to spend the
weekend with us. All of these kids the mormons threw under the bus, never a word
to one of the parents, there might be a problem. Many times I had never met the
kids parents, they just trusted me knowing, the kids would be safe and well taken care
of. Not one complaint from any of the kids- wasn't as exciting as they expected
so not many repeats.

My Mom sold the house out from under me, so moved to Pasco across the river from
Kennewick. Was just happy to be leaving the rear neighbor. I downloaded
something highly suspects (Japanese anime) and the cops checked my place and
imaged my hard drives. Didn't hear from them for quite a while after that.

My older Son was given custody of his kids, a Boy and Girl both very young. I
got the situation in Kennewick straightened out as planned on, spending a lot of
time with my Son and grandkids. The hard part is there's nobody to talk to about
this situation, so, got lucky.

Granddaughter and I went shopping. At the check-out, a looming bulk was standing
next to me like I was supposed to react in some manner, it was the Dog Ugly Indian and
damn if she didn't work across the street from my son at WinCo, I hadn't seen
here since the hair cut.

--I've tried to keep this short, with little luck.--

I'd watch the Grandkids when my Son was working. When he worked a full week at a
job site, I spent the week at his place with the kids. Friday he'd drive me
home. One day my truck was gone, so I called the Police and reported it stolen
and that I watched the kids during the week and if anyone tried to get a hold of
me they wouldn't of been able to. They told me it was impounded and I went and
paid to get it out.

A few weeks later I got a phone call saying they were the Police and they
understood I watched kids during the day, I said Yep. She then says were going
to monitor you through your cell phone I said ok, and meant it, I take pride
in my child care. As far as I know, I'm still being monitored, and it's been 9 to
10 months (I forget). A continuation of the search they did some 6 years
earlier in Pasco.

The next morning, Granddaughter and I went to WinCo shopping. I had a different
outlook now, hell, I had the Police in my back pocket.

While there, the Dog Ugly Indian walked by I cursed her out, she walked by again and I
reminded how ugly she was. It was what I normally said to her, in fact the only
things I'd say. Then the third time in 5 minutes she walked by again a first so
told her she couldn't watch me beat the granddaughter (it's not great humor but
I've used it before). She walked away in a huff and at that point I understood
she was indeed an idiot by every definition of the word.

I was never informed but the Ken the landlord was told to tell (I don't know
what) But it seems everybody with kids was told I would hurt them. My son bought
his forever home and as soon as he told the Ken the landlord, he went to
his new place and what he told the neighbors had them very scared of me. And
that he was on call to help keep me under control. mormons pay damn good money
to be told what to do.

I told the Ken the landlord everything I've written above, assuming he would revisit the
neighbors and tell them he lied. He never did, so this is me seeking legal
advice.

My Son was sent to live with me when he was 11, he knows me very well and knows
his kids are safe with me.

Understand, nobody that knows me believes me when I tell them what the mormons
think of me, I've been shouldering this all by myself, and I'm not good at
protecting myself my work history proves that.

My Son just assumes I've lost my mind, even the son I was supposed to of been
molesting has mocked me over this. I told his mom when my hair was cut, I thought
the mormons think I'm a molester. She said "the Mother always knows" I asked
what she meant, she finished, "They always tell the Mother". Well, that's not
true if you're a mormon.

Just been soldiering on till it proved itself.

User Journal

Journal Journal: How do I get the mormons to leave me alonE! 1

Kicked my son out of the bed on his birthday, saying he was too old to be sleeping with me. He still wouldn't use his bedroom, but slept in the living room on the couch. He was lonely, so invited a friend from where he lived to spend the weekend with us. All of these kids the mormons threw under the bus, never a word to one of the parents there might be a problem. Many times I had never met the kids parents, they just trusted me knowing, the kids would be safe and well taken care. Not one complaint from any of the kids wasn't as exciting as they expected, so not many repeats.

My Mom sold the house out from under me, so moved to Pasco across the river from Kennewick. Was just happy to be leaving the rear neighbor. I downloaded something highly suspect (Japanese anime) and the cops checked my place and imaged my hard drives. Didn't hear from them for quite a while after that.

My older Son was given custody of his kids, a boy, and girl both very young. I got the situation in Kennewick straightened out and planned on spending a lot of time with my Son and grandkids. The hard part is there's nobody to talk to about this situation, so got lucky.

Granddaughter and I went shopping. At the check-out, a looming bulk was standing next to me like I was supposed to react in some manner. It was the Dog Ugly Indian mormon and damn if she didn't work across the street from my son at WinCo, I hadn't seen her since the hair cut.

--I've tried to keep this short, with little luck.--

I'd watch the Grandkids when my Son was working. When he worked a full week at a job site, I spent the week at his place with the kids. Friday, he'd drive me home. One day my truck was gone, so I called the Police and reported it stolen and that I watched the kids during the week, anyone trying to get a hold of me they wouldn't of been able to. They told me it was impounded and I went and paid to get it out.

A few weeks later I got a phone call saying they were the Police and they understood I watched kids during the day, I said Yep. She then says we're going to monitor you through your cell phone, I said ok, and meant it, I take pride in my child care. As far as I know, I'm still being monitored, and it's been 9 to 10 months (I forget). But a continuation of the search they did some 6 years earlier.

The next morning, granddaughter and I went to WinCo shopping. I had a different outlook now, hell I had the Police in my back pocket.

While there, the Dog Ugly Indian mormon walked by I cursed her out, she walked by again and I reminded how ugly she was. It was what I normally said to her, in fact the only things I'd say. Then the third time in 5 minutes she walked by again a first, so told her she couldn't watch me beat the granddaughter (it's not great humor, but I've used it before). She walked away like she had me, and at that point I understood she was indeed an idiot by every definition of the word.

I was never informed but the Ken the landlord was told to tell (I don't know what) But it seems everybody with kids was told I would hurt them. My son bought his forever home and as soon as he told the Ken the Landlord, Ken went to son's new place and what he told the neighbors had them very afraid of me. He was even on call to help keep me under control. mormons pay damn good money to be told what to do.

I told the Ken the Landlord everything I've written above, assuming he would revisit the neighbors and tell them he lied. He never did, so this is me seeking legal advice.

My Son was sent to live with me when he was 11, he knows me very well and knows his kids are safe with me.

Understand, nobody that knows me believes me when I tell them what the mormons think of me, I've been shouldering this all by myself, and I'm not good at protecting myself, my work history proves that.

My Son just assumes I've lost my mind, even the son I was supposed to of been molesting has mocked me over this. I told his mom when my hair was cut, I thought the mormons think I'm a molester. She said "the Mother always knows" I asked what she meant, "They always tell the Mother". Well, that's not true if you're a mormon.

Just been soldiering on.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Microsoft and Defender are trying to delete my HOSTS file Solved -solved-

https://imgur.com/gallery/PzVVK3Z

It was just a matter of time. Microsoft has screwed with the HOSTS file lots. Going as far as disabling it many years ago (I was told of this). Went to find proof in the form of a link and found they have been doing this for at least a
year.

How this began...

Yesterday I found a file nobody will talk about: StructuredQuery.log, it was split if it was a bad thing or not.

The answer was as vague as it could be.

 

Is it normal for iexplore.exe to create a %TMP%\StructuredQuery.log file?

        The file contents are several SQL queries of you favorites.

        -Anwser-

        Hi Tony,

        Yes. It is normal.

        It is the log for all searches we have done.

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/7c7361c8-e1ec-4fbb-975b-e42db0e570c0/structuredquerylog

There it is - When Microsoft feels like it they will grab your links used, while IE was mention I haven't used IE since Win95.

Believe I'm the only one not in the loop that is aware of just what GWX really did. (Get Windows 10), came across it 7 days after it was sent out. And swear to a deity my HOSTS file blocked it from leaving. (for /. I wrote of GWX in my Journal, but messed up the name).

Screw it came across this link: Completely Disable & Remove Windows 10 Telemetry

https://encrypt-the-planet.com/COMPLETELY-disable-windows-10-telemetry/

So I followed it as a guide. Two programs were mentioned and, while not my style, installed them only to remove them this morning. IObit Uninstaller and Spybot. Spybot I found today had edited my HOSTS file, I kept the edits, but it added them as 0.0.0.0 where I had to rename them 127.0.0.1

And my find of just a bit over a year ago says I have to prevent my HOSTS file from being deleted. A file that has its own RFC (very much part of the Internet). My HOSTS file is so large it messes with the DNS cache and I have to disable the DNS Client in the Services. About a year ago, Microsoft removes the DNS cache control from the services and now must be isabled in the Registry (figure they are following GOP's lead and making it hard if not impossible for many).

Windows 10: HOSTS file blocking telemetry is now flagged as a risk

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/windows-10-hosts-file-blocking-telemetry-is-now-flagged-as-a-risk/

User Journal

Journal Journal: Three Quarters of Android Apps Track Users With Third Party Tools

Info taken from https://exodus-privacy.eu.org/ and to my router

I had to type it out for myself, so posted for others use.
Keywords:
AdScreen
DoubleClick
Xiti
Crashlytics
Tealium
v1.blueberry.cloud.databerries

Following from https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/trackers/

Tracker - Site
Ad4Screen - ad4screen.com
Add Apt Tr - addapptr.com
AdsWizz - adswizz.com
App-Boy - braze.com
AppNexus - appnexus.com
AppsFlyer - appsflyer.com
ATInternet - ATInternet.com atinternet.com/en/
Batch - batch.com
CrashLytics- CrashLytics.com
Demdex - https://www.adobe.com/data-analytics-cloud/audience-manager.html
DoubleClick- doubleclickbygoogle.com
ExactTarget- https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.mc-apis.meta/mc-apis/index-api.htm
FidZup - FidZup.com
Flurry.com - developer.yahoo.com
HockeyApp - HockeyApp.net
JWPLTx - JWPLTx.com
Krux - https://www.salesforce.com/products/marketing-cloud/data-management
LeanPlum - LeanPlum.com
Ligatus - Ligatus.com
Localytics - Localytics.com
Loggly - Loggly.com
MoPub - MoPub.com
MParticle - MParticle.com
Nexage - Nexage.com
Omnitude - Omniture.com *
OutBrain - OutBrain.com
Presage - Presage.io
PushWoosh - PushWoosh.com
S4M - S4M.io
Safe Graph - SafeGraph.com
Schibsted - http://www.schibsted.com/en/ir/
Score Card Research - ScoreCardResearch.com
Sizmek - Sizmek.com
Smart - Smartserver.com
Sync2Ad - Sync2Ad.com
Tag Commander - https://www.commandersact.com/en/
Tealium - Tealium.com
Teemo - Teemo.co *
Tinder Analytics - tinder.com
Tune - Tune.com
Ultimedia - Ultimedia.com
Vectaury - Vectaury.io
Weborama - Weborama.com
Widespace - Widespace.com
Xiti - Xiti.com

User Journal

Journal Journal: Transparency

Easy, no-cost implementation: Any agency that provides publicly available transportation services and operates with fixed schedules and routes is welcome to participate. Itâ(TM)s simple and free - all it takes is your data.
https://support.google.com/transitpartners/answer/1111471?hl=en&ref_topic=3521043

User Journal

Journal Journal: Just moving my User perfs Bios to journal in hopes of a link.

Once I opened up and posted it here, it's' what I've been using elsewhere. I do hope you don't mind.

Former: Pharmacist, Electrician, Purchasing Agent for the Alyeska Pipeline (Alaska), Certified nuclear reactor operator of a 4000 M/W reactor producing Plutonium for DOE (Department of Energy), and avid poster to the Usenet Newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk.

Present: Bum with an Internet connection.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Prevent almost all ads from your cell phone (no HOST)

The back story: Taken from the ToS of Rivio.com (angry birds):
All of the data collected from you is sold to Flurry.com (was Google now comes from Yahoo.com - robtex.com will show all), Flurry.com takes that data mixing it with what they have; sending it out to you as target ads.

Your able to opt out of flurry.com, and in my case now have almost zero ads coming in, the only exception is from the application your using. I've done this with ever cell phone I've owned and even a Xoom tablet (Android).

How: Goto Google Play Store and download "Device info" the one your looking for is a green circle with a small i in the middle (by:jphilli85). Install this free and ad-less program; It will show as a green ID on your screen; open it up and grab the very first number (Secure. ANDROID_ID).

Now: Google: flurry.com opt out - on that screen are pages of text mentioning what a good thing they are, a few screen down is a place to input your type of phone and a spot to paste the number ID gave you.

After inputing the number you will be told it's successful by telling you it will take a few weeks to get the number into the system.

And your done, enjoy.

User Journal

Journal Journal: I've referred to this so much it's just easier to post it here.

This was posted and grabbed from the Newsgroup: alt.fan.cecil-adams it's my reference to the meaning of a virgin but it goes much deeper, and quite lengthy.

From: "Bill Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Bill Baldwin citing
Date: 1999/08/14
Message-ID:
References:
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams

Deborah wrote:
>"Ras Harpentuan" writes:
>
>>May be old news, but is this the same Bill Baldwin that frequents this
>>group? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/990730.html
>
>Yes.
>
>Ed Zotti was doing some fact-checking, and asked me to help him out with
>the background on this question. Always eager to delegate, I suggested
>putting Bill in the picture.
>
>I only regret that Cecil did not end up quoting Bill more extensively,
>since the summary that he prepared for Ed was not only edifying but
  amusing.
>
>Maybe Bill will post it here, if we ask nicely. What do you say, Bill?
>Pretty please?

  I have served the master well. My life is complete. Here's the full
text of what I sent "Little Ed." (You'll note that the misprint suggesting
that Greek for "sisters" is "adelphi" rather than the correct "adelphai" is
not derived from my synopsis. And Cecil being who he is, this mistake
obviously belongs to someone else. Must be the work of disgruntled office
drudges or saboteurs):

(1) whether Jesus had siblings

THE DATA

I know of no extra-Biblical historical source that says anything on this
subject. Several Biblical passages do speak of Jesus' brothers: John 2:12,
7:3-5, 10, Acts 1:14, Matthew 12:46,47 (parallel passage Mark 3:31,32),
Matthew 13:55 (Mark 6:3). The last of these names them as James, Joseph (or
Joses), Simon, and Judas and goes on to mention that he had sisters as well.

Also Matthew (in 1:25) and Luke (in 2:7) refer to Jesus as Mary's
"firstborn" son. However, it's possible that such a designation was
conferred automatically to firstborn sons at birth whether there was further
issue or not.

Paul also refers to "James, the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19.

However, it is interesting to note that Jesus on the cross singles out John,
"the beloved disciple" but a non-relation. He says of John to Mary "Woman,
behold your son" and of Mary to John, "Behold your mother" with the result
that John took her in to live with him (John 19:25-27). This is a somewhat
perplexing decree when the woman presumably had four able-bodied sons
available to take care of her. However, John 7:5 notes that his brothers did
not believe in him, so that would be a simple explanation of his preference
for John.

THE DOGMA

So obviously the Church line was that Jesus had siblings, right? Of course,
right, say the Protestants. Not so fast, Bub, say the Eastern Orthodox and
the Roman Catholics. Mary was not simply a virgin when she conceived, but a
virgin all her life, unsullied by the inherent dirtiness of the sex act.
(Thus, as Dave Barry noted, making Joseph the patron saint of cold showers,
but I digress.) So these cannot be her children.

I have labeled this section "The Dogma" advisedly. The perpetual virginity
of Mary is not a doctrine asserted by Scripture. It is a dogma handed down
by Tradition, an authority which the Orthodox and Roman Catholics
acknowledge on a level with Scripture, but which Protestants reject.

So the Orthodox and Catholics disagree with the Protestant interpretation of
the above data. It only remains for them, inevitably, to disagree with each
other.

The Orthodox Dogma

The passages refer to Jesus' half brothers. They are Joseph's sons by a
former marriage. They are called brothers by the same convention that allows
Scripture to refer to Joseph as Jesus' "father" despite the fact that he
hadn't, technically, been involved in the conception except as an innocent
bystander.

Support from Tradition: "This theory is found first in the apocryphal
writings of James (the Protevangelium Jacobi, the Ascents of James, etc.),
and then among the leading Greek fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria); it is embodied
in the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic services, which assign different dates to
the commemoration of James the son of Alphaeus (Oct. 9), and of James the
LordÂ's brother (Oct. 23). It may therefore be called the theory of the
Eastern church. It was also held by some Latin fathers before Jerome (Hilary
of Poitiers and Ambrose)" (Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church).
With such evidence, the eastern church is more than content.

Strengths: It would be very natural to the Hebrew mindset to refer to such
relations as "brothers." It supports the dogma of Mary's virginity. It
lessens the problem of Jesus commending his mother into John's care. (But
not much. See "Weaknesses.") It explains the brothers' patronizing attitude
to Jesus in John 7:3,4.

Weaknesses: Jesus' brothers almost always accompany his mother, indicating a
close relationship and leaving the problem of Jesus commending Mary to John
undiminished. It assumes a former marriage of Joseph nowhere attested to.
(This isn't really such a big deal. There are lots of things we aren't told
about Joseph.) It compromises Jesus' claim to the throne of David which had
to come through Joseph's lineage, not Mary's. Scripture elsewhere vigorously
asserts this claim.

The Catholic Dogma

The passages refer to Jesus' cousins. This theory was first advanced by a
young Saint Jerome (of Latin Vulgate fame) in 383. He was arguing against
one Helvidius who had held forth the theory that Jesus' "brothers" were,
well, his brothers. To Jerome this did not sufficiently guard the purity of
Mary or, interestingly enough, of Joseph either.

Jerome's contemporary and an even bigger theological powerhouse, Augustine,
picked up the cousin theory. He waffled for a bit with the half-brother idea
in 394. But finally his inherent suspicion of the sex act won out and
decided for the virginity of both parties.

Naturally, then, the Latin or Western Church adopted this view.

This is Roman Catholic doctrine to this day. The Jerusalem Bible, a modern
English translation for Catholics, has this footnote where Jesus' brothers
are referred to: "Not MaryÂ's children but near relations, cousins perhaps,
which both Hebr. and Aramaic style Â'brothers,Â' cf. Gn 13:8 ; 14:16 ; 29:15 ;
Lv 10:4 ; I Ch 23:22f ."

The Catholic doctrine further asserts that these cousins are sons of Mary,
the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin Mary; but I'm darned if I know
how they decided that.

Strengths: It protects Mary's and Joseph's virginity. It accounts even
better for Jesus commending his mother into the care of John, "the beloved
disciple." It does not compromise Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne.

Weaknesses: There are perfectly good Greek words for "cousin" and "kinsman"
and these words are used in the very books that refer to Jesus' "brothers."
This is simply an unnatural reading of the text. It means that the Virgin
Mary had a sister named ... Mary. Right.

Conclusion: Aside from dogmatic concerns, there is every reason to believe
the Bible claims Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. There is
no other contemporary historical evidence on either side of this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

(2) whether virgin as in Virgin Mary meant what we think it means today or
merely "young woman."

THE SIMPLE ANSWER

Yes.

Luke is explicit about this. He recounts how the angel appeared to Mary and
told her she would bring forth a son. She responds with the obvious
question: "How can this be, since I do not know a man [i.e. I'm a virgin]?"
(Luke 1:34). The angel responds that the child will be conceived in her by
the Holy Spirit.

Matthew concurs. Matthew 1:18 reads: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as
follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." The gospel goes on
to note that Joseph's first impulse on finding out his fiancée was pregnant
was to break up with her. He had to be calmed down by an angel telling him
everything was jake and that the child in her was conceived by the Holy
Spirit.

Matthew sums up the event in 1:22,23: "So all this was done that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall
call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us.'"

THE REAL QUESTION

Did Matthew and Luke and the early church assign virginity to Mary because
of a misunderstanding of an Old Testament prophecy? Does the Hebrew Bible
really predict that a virgin will conceive the Messiah? Or does this basic
Christian doctrine rest on (giggle) a mistranslation?

THE DATA

Here's the King James translation of the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14: "Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Now for the New Revised Standard translation: "Look, the young woman is with
child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

Both versions are translating the Hebrew word almah. The Koehler-Baumgartner
lexicon -- the OED of the Hebrew to English world -- defines it thus:
"almah: girl (of marriageable age), young woman (until the birth of first
child)." The first definition implies virginity, the second doesn't. And
even in the first definition, the idea that the almah would conceive
doesn't necessarily mean that she would do so while still a virgin. She
could get married, do the nasty, and then conceive.

The word is used 7 times in the Hebrew Bible. Here's how it breaks down:

Genesis 23:43 -- The woman, Rebekah, is unquestionably a virgin
Exodus 2:8 -- The woman, Pharaoh's daughter, may or may not be a virgin.
Isaiah 7:14 -- (The passage in question)
Psalm 68:26 -- Probably virgins, but unable to tell.
Proverbs 30:19 -- Probably virgins, but unable to tell.
Song of Solomon 1:3 -- Probably virgins, but unable to tell.
Song of Solomon 6:8 -- Probably virgins, but unable to tell.

What else is there? Nothing really. For the New Testament, we can study
contemporary ancient Greek documents. For the Old Testament, the Hebrew
Bible is all there is (excepting the odd amulet or bit of pottery).

So where did Matthew get the idea to translate this "virgin"? From the
Septuagint, the 3rd to 1st Century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures. Hebrew was becoming an unfamiliar language to many, so the Jews
set to work on a suitable translation to be read in the synagogues. This
translation pegs the almah as a parthenos. A virgin. Nothing more, less, or
other.

One other time the Septuagint translates the word as "parthenos" (virgin), 4
times "neanis" (young woman, girl, maiden) and once as "neotes" (youthful
female). Even these second and third words indicate that the person in
question is a virgin.

The passage surrounding Isaiah 7:14 involves a prophesy to King Ahaz of
Judah when King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel are
marching against Jerusalem, Judah's capital. The Lord tells Ahaz to ask for
a sign, but Ahaz declines. So the prophet Isaiah expresses the Lord's
disgust at this and says he'll give a sign anyway. A ... whatever ... will
conceive and bear a son, etc. "But before the boy knows enough to reject the
wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid
waste."

THE ARGUMENTS

The Early Church Was Misled by the Septuagint

Under this theory the Septuagint made a simple error of translation. The
early Church, in its zeal to proclaim Jesus the Jewish Messiah (and
possibly, doing double duty, explain away rumors of his illegitimacy) stated
that this prophecy of virgin birth had been fulfilled in their Lord.

Argument for: The word doesn't really mean virgin. And what's more the
prophecy clearly refers to the near future of Ahaz's time, not to the remote
future of the coming Messiah. Before the boy grows up, the two kings coming
against Ahaz will be defeated. This happened long before the birth of Jesus.

Rebuttal: It was a Jewish translation of Isaiah, prior to the time of
Christ, that first introduced the idea that it was a virgin that would
conceive. These translators knew the Hebrew language and chose their words
carefully. They would have been able to formulate the above argument, yet
still they chose to translate the passage the way they did.

One must understand the hermeneutic of the time. Many passages were
considered messianic that would not appear that way to a 20th century
reader. Even passages that refer to the near future or even the present or
the past. This was not a hermeneutic invented by the early church, although
naturally the early church seized on it. In any event, a passage predicting
the birth of "Immanuel" -- Hebrew for "God with us" -- would almost
certainly have been considered messianic. Matthew wasn't even being
original.

An advantage to rejecting this is it saves us from the "Everyone was stupid
then, but we're so smart now" school of thought.

The Passage Is a Prophecy of a Miraculous Virgin Birth

Pro: It's possible that the Hebrew word almah always carried the connotation
of virginity. There just isn't enough Hebrew data to conclude that. This
would explain why the Septuagint translators, who knew Hebrew and Greek,
made the translation they did.

Rebuttal: Dang it, the passage clearly refers to the time of Ahaz! He's got
two kings attacking him and those kings will be defeated before this kid
that's about to be born is mature. There's no reference in Isaiah or any of
the contemporary historical narratives to a miraculous virgin birth. And
that's the only time when this miracle could have occurred to fulfil this
prophecy. A virgin birth over half a millennium later just doesn't count,
even if it did happen.

It's a Floor Wax and a Dessert Topping

The prophecy in Isaiah has both a proximate and an ultimate fulfillment. It
refers proximately to an event in Ahaz's time and ultimately to the birth of
the Messiah. Thus the use of almah is deliberately ambiguous. It refers in
Ahaz's time to a young woman who will conceive in the ordinary way, but it
refers ultimately to the birth of Christ. The Septuagint translators chose
to emphasize the ultimate over the proximate fulfillment.

Pro: Regardless of whether this flies with us, this is certainly consistent
with the attitude of Matthew and the other New Testament writers. Matthew
was not ignorant of the historical context of Isaiah's prophecy; he simply
felt that the ultimate historical context of all Scripture had arrived in
Jesus. As Paul put it, "All the promises of God are 'yes' in Christ Jesus."

In support of this, notice how Matthew handles the flight of Mary and Joseph
into Egypt. "So [Joseph] got up, took the child and his mother during the
night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so
was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I
called my son.'"

Matthew is here quoting Hosea 11:1:"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son." Hosea is clearly referring to the flight
of the nation of Israel from Egypt. (In fact, Hosea, speaking for God, goes
right on to complain that "the more I called Israel, the further they went
from me." This would certainly be an odd set of words for Matthew to apply
to Jesus.) Israel is often referred to as God's "son" in the Hebrew Bible.

Now Matthew is not brain dead. He knows that the words of Hosea originally
referred to the flight of Israel from Egypt. And he knows his readers know
that. So what's he trying to pull? He's trying to say that it is Jesus who
is the true son of God, Jesus who is the true Israel. He is reinterpreting
the literal meaning of these words, imbuing them with Messianic portent.

Many such examples could be adduced in Matthew. And Matthew is not alone in
this. This appears to be the uniform treatment of Old Testament prophecies
by the New Testament writers.

Rebuttal: I'll leave that to Deborah (hee hee). Seriously, I think this is
clearly what's going on in Matthew's argument. The obvious non-Christian
rebuttal is "Do you expect us to buy his argument?" But that's really
outside the scope of this response. I'm simply saying that this was the New
Testament understanding; and, as far as the translation "virgin" goes,
there's pre-Christian provenance for that. Where Deborah may be able to help
is in answering whether pre-Christian Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 7
was messianic.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Old Thinking: My HOST file protect me 2

My IP address (as per Grc.com (SheildsUp)) is 172.56.33.7 Robtex.com shows and I expected
T-Mobile.

NetRange: 172.32.0.0 - 172.63.255.255
CIDR: 172.32.0.0/11
NetName: TMO9
NetHandle: NET-172-32-0-0-1
Parent: NET172 (NET-172-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS: AS21928
Organization: T-Mobile USA, Inc. (TMOBI)
RegDate: 2012-09-18
Updated: 2012-09-18

Kool I'm as anonymous as one can get and how I've seen it from day one.

Then hell, check out my IP address (from phone > info) 30.250.150.209

Netname: DNIC-NET-030
NetRange: 30.0.0.0 - 30.255.255.255
CIDR: 30.0.0.0/8
NetName: DNIC-NET-030
NetHandle: NET-30-0-0-0-1
Parent: ()
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS:
Organization: DoD Network Information Center (DNIC)
RegDate: 1991-07-01
Updated: 2009-06-19

Perfect...

User Journal

Journal Journal: HOSTS file for the Win! 2

My Malware protection a 144267 line HOSTS file (called that on any operating system
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122) and a very outdated version of Comodo firewall.

I've always been curious why my postings of the C:\Windows\System32\CWX\*.* files didn't receive more attention than it did, as the littlest of such types of it's nature activity are being reported. Surly the anti-maleware ware companies are aware of this and a + to their product when listed as being caught.

I was even banned from the website sevenforums.com After posting about it.

You have been banned for the following reason:
Posting crap
Date the ban will be lifted:Never

You can't stop this kind of stuff from happening
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms other than using a HOSTS file. Yet even then may of no use which according to APK Microsoft can disabled. From day one I've never seen what the right side of /. holds.

User Journal

Journal Journal: CWX directory, what it did, u got hosed

The refusal I've encountered of even considering such a thing caught me off guard,
My first post got me banned from sevenforum three days after I registered for posting crap -claim- I think it was really when someone posted their services I mentioned what AVG has done is a crime - it's like 10 services now, I hit on a sponsor. It's been so long since I've used any av program but 8-10 services are too much for a program

This type of thing (CWX) comes in three phases, one the alert there might be a problem with xxx and what you or they found.

Two is verification that it is indeed it's not wanted. In this case I'm might know where I can get it, and if not be very disappointed in them.

Three what it really does as your findings are coming together and making since and
normally the removal and repair if needed.

I'm at three - I know all who have a CWX directory have sent a scan like I posted just with their cache files. It ran for 24 hours then left so less than 25 hours. Your protection didn't have time to get anything to you. So why even mention it. I know how I screwed up and it went from 500 to 7 K (it got sent), I know why I alone came across it. Pretty much any question about about it now I can answer, FWIW I fairly sure to a high degree what directory it used to hide it's activity, come on it's an easy one, considering what it sent. I know Microsoft didn't do this alone, a third party collected the config.xml files who? don't need to know, and I'm sure nobody else does either. but it's not over, expect this again as from the post I've read if you read this your one of the few who know what it did, Microsoft got away with it.

apk scores one here, he's not a spammer while the post are long even for me and overkill they can be much shorter (just tell me if my post are too long), he's really giving you a clue, if you just listen to what he supports above all - is better than anything else you can run then your close to understanding the clue.

And while I did everything right I did it wrong. 15 days after it's installation and still nobody knew what it really does was a red light for me and why I was removing it.

Oh and the fact I sent a scan to someone I could care less - I'm sure I've sent worse. My post were to alert u, but hell it happened over 10 days ago so my post were useless.

My protection: very old version of Comodo firewall, if it works as well has all this time it stays, what I know, HOSTS file and autoruns to tell me what I need to know.

  would suggest you remove the CWX directory, even if it's other function is "prep you for an update" hell easier and to introduce you to the only tool you need (for most functions) just use autoruns and disable it,

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902
An option is to: Hide Signed Microsoft Entries you can't trust them anymore I'd have those in the view. (unhide MS entries)

User Journal

Journal Journal: Follow up: I now feel it important enough that you know of and remove this item, 2

Disconnect yourself from the Internet. I now feel it will send the results itself if tampered with.

To remove the directory (many ways I'm sure, I just did it the way I always do) boot up with another OS

The config.xml in question I found and copied when I first found it (Powerpro keeps the last 100 clips (a clip - anytime time a copy command is used from any application or keys PowerPro keeps a copy) I can go back later to find something that's now of importance in some manner - a recently used username and password (security, lot of sites on the internet to visit till the right one is found), So a feature always waiting through PowerPro (been using it since Win95) I'm just used to copying stuff, it does no harm and available later if needed.

I was in no hurry, the directory was protected and I was going to remove it no big deal.

Booted into MiniXP and moved the directory to a pen drive.

From the time I found the config.xml file, to logging off the config.xml became a 7K config.xml file (default size), down from over 500K

Damn, I went to the PowerPro to see if I had copied it and found I had, whew not a dream. I have to assume is was sent within being found and shutting down I have no clue the time, but not long after finding the CWX , I use Agent Ransack alone for my system searches I haven't run MS search since Win98?? when the cache collector took up all the resources rendering ones computer fairly useless. Once burnt shame on u, twice burnt situation, I've disabled it since. Agent Ransack (Ctl+Alt+F) is all I've used, it searches everything as opposed to just certain file types. files strings, by file name, the desperate act of three letters, regular expression, over a span of months, to hours (as low as I'd go). Being free you can use it yourself, if you want it Agent Ransack will find it by offering more than a few ways to search

Agent Ransack and I looked hard for anything related to the original config.xml or any parts of the file, I wanted to find that file or any parts of it anywhere on my system, if for no other reason help explain the existence of the CWX directory.- Yet I alone seem to know of the cache scan and a 500K file that left without a trace as my firewall should of warned me (I don't use the windows firewall)

I felt a need to issue a warning, it's what I do, help others I spent 7 years in the newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk cause I could do just that, no question was off limits but 99% of them were computer related. It's turned political and has been for years

I would of appreciated a warning found nothing in any config.xml file and questioned the poster myself but removed it as something I had no use for it from what I found. I have to wonder if others scans had already left as a 15 day wait between capture and it's disappearance is damn odd as well, I block a hell of a lot of sites, causing it stick around is not far fetched.

I don't see the post with the scan and wouldn't be surprised if it has been deleted. This CWX and what I know has caused me nothing but problems.
I'll send the scan to anyone who wishes to view it, even post it to a newsgroup just not on any web sites again.

User Journal

Journal Journal: I now feel it important enough that you know of and remove this item,

it has the potential of causing some major problems for you (or anyone).

Update notice: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3035583/ Opening a + will show you the files involved. Do noticed your told nothing of what it's suppose to do.
Update reference #: KB3035583

The directory in question is located at Windows/System32/GWX. You can't read the files where they are, most will give wrong path errors (at least what I was getting). The files are protected, and best left alone.
.
Disconnect yourself from the Internet. I now feel it will send the results itself if tampered with.

To remove the directory (many ways I'm sure, I just did it the way I always do) boot up with another OS (I use MiniXP supplied with Hiren's boot disk 15, in a pinch you can cobble a Boot CD/pen drive using www.Bootdisk.com). Just boot into MiniXP (or other) go to the GWX directory and move it to a Pen Drive (or where ever, just off your system - as it's possible for Win7+ to find and use it from any location (maybe not, but possible)).

Picture shows location of the collected scanned results (UrFile - Config.xml)).
http://i57.tinypic.com/2q3u079.jpg

(What was found on my system Apr 3rd and 4th - it was sent after I found the directory Apr 19th - no edits) -log not included this post

Win7+ = Win7 and anything above

Scanned results = Your broswer(s) caches are recorded verbatim, then appended to a log file (config.xml), just over a days worth of activity (in my case).

User Journal

Journal Journal: Don't need any fancy phone after all.

I have a Samsung S5 ($700) for it's 17.9 MegPix camera, problems with the bill forced me to get a back up phone. I picked up a "track phone"; a Samsung "Gusto 3" and while it won't do anything special it's a damn nice phone and once my contract is up I'll be getting a track phone from now on. S5=$100 a month with limits, Gusto=$35 a month, the phone itself cost $10 with unlimited texting and phone calls. I purchased the cheapest one I could find.

All is fine now but have to carry two phones.
S5 battery last half a day, the "Gusto 3" weeks. And if your into photography you'll know of my disappointment of the S5's ISO of 40.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Murder is such a thin line, with two sides.

If you commit such an act your condemned by the legal system for the rest of your life. If in the "line of duty" not a problem at least for the last three that got away with it (read article under video). This happened just last night in my fair city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0uqFTBclo one question: why didn't they tackle him? I was told (so hearsay) that he took 16 bullets, everybody wanted in on it.

This happened last night and is part of a larger Mexican "center" - those who live there and those who cater their wares to the Mexicans in particular. I shop the Mexican stores as it's authentic, so my Coca-Cola contains sugar and not that corn syrup crap.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/02/10/3403817_witnesses-pasco-police-kill-rock.html?rh=1

So I get pulled over more now, but this just isn't right, so many options available and they chose wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where there's a will, there's a relative.

Working...