CONCLUSION
And finally, here’s the final part! If you have any thoughts, or any disagreements, comment down below! I’d love to discuss the game’s lore with you all!
At its heart, Indigo Park is a tragedy, one that would make both Shakespeare and the ancient Greeks proud. It starts off with the creator wanting nothing but good, but slowly devolves into a horrifying, downward spiral. After all, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Isaac Indigo has a dream of bringing his imagination to life, for people everywhere. The beginning of the twentieth century began horrendously, World War 1 being the deadliest conflict at the time. Wanting to help everyone and bring at least a spark of joy into their lives, Isaac Indigo launches headfirst into the media of his choice: cartoons.
Indigo comes up with his first permanent Mascot, Lloydford L. Lion. A loud, booming, rambunctious character, Lloyd sought to be the spark of happiness that Indigo hoped he would be. Lloyd would the very best actor, showman, and orator. He’s arrogant, but not pompous. He’s loud, but not with ill will. He’s the beginning of the cast that Indigo envisions, a character whose sole purpose is to please the world. It’s not a surprise that Lloyd is an actor, after all. He seeks to distract the world from its woes, at least for a bit, and make everyone have a good time.
Indigo, emboldened by his sudden fame and success, proceeds to churn out four more individuals: Rambley the Raccoon, Mollie the Macaw, Salem the Skunk, and, eventually, Finley the Sea Serpent, though he comes in separate from the other three.
Rambley Raccoon, a quick thinking, sharp tongued, cheeky little gremlin, is an instant hit with the people, becoming the second most popular character out of the five. Mollie Macaw, a happy-go-lucky bird with a love for the open skies, acts as Rambley’s best friend, the two practically glued together. Together, alongside Lloyd, these three represent the ‘good guys’, a trio that want nothing but the best for the people.
However, every hero needs a villain, and thus, Salem the Skunk was born, a snappy, malevolent little critter that wished for the world to revolve around herself. She has a knack for potion making, a capable chemist who uses her concoctions to bend the wills of others to herself, only for herself.
Rambley and Salem end up becoming fated rivals, nemeses who dislike each other the most, out of every character that Indigo created. Using Salem, Indigo would spread the message of peace, of friendship and everlasting bonds that always triumph against evil, and Salem.
This continuity continues for a period of time, Indigo eventually adding one more character to his roster: the melancholy sea dragon, Finley. Finley’s main goal was to be the educator, to explain the natural world around people and share the fascinating and the beautiful, especially in regard to the ocean, a concept still so unexplored, while also trying to appeal to an older crowd alongside Lloyd.
However, poor Finley wouldn’t ever be that popular amongst his peers. Perhaps it was his gloomy, exhausted aura that pushed people away, or perhaps it was his towering, and frankly scary, size, or even maybe because he was deemed boring by the youngest, who were more keen on Rambley, the character that appealed to them the most. Even the other characters, whether Indigo intended for this or not, seemed a bit annoyed by Finley, and often left him to his devices.
And, for a while, Indigo’s plan succeeded. His popularity and notoriety only increased as time went on, gaining him influence, money, and prestige. His plans were working! He was making a difference, making smiles appear on the faces of people who would otherwise be swept away by the woes of the world!
Everything started to crumble, however, when yet another horrifying conflict arose: World War II. The Old World was thrown into chaos, Europe, Africa, and Asia becoming the bloodiest battleground in human history, surpassing even the Great War that came before it.
So, Indigo concocted a scheme, a way to raise the spirits of those he could currently help, his fellow Americans. Indigo Park was to be his magnus opus, his monument that would transcend his lifetime. Here, all of his creations would gather, all of them having their own attractions, bringing a level of access that had never yet been realized before. Costumed people would walk around during operational hours, bringing his characters into the real world to interact with those that needed refuge from the outside horrors.
However, while his park became a success, spearheaded by Lloyd the Lion, the very first, there was something that bothered Indigo. These costumed performers, while certainly a stroke of genius, underperformed. Besides that, they sometimes broke character, and destroyed the immersion of the guests, and were quite costly to keep around, alongside the engineers, the logistics division, and the Ranglers that helped run Indigo Park. Not to mention, the cost of custom costumes, of fabric and materials, rose higher and higher as quotas began to be placed and maintained in the USA, due to the resources it sent to its allies overseas, before eventually joining their allies in the fight against evil.
If he couldn’t simulate his characters, why not make them? Animals that would be living, breathing creatures that would merely need care, compassion, and basic necessities? Hiring a bunch of the best scientists, he gave them a special role: The Royal Ranglers, those that would be entrusted with this secret project.
Indigo, while a creative man, didn’t understand science as well as these individuals, and likely never would, but he would make them keep logs, records of their successes and failures, of their many experiments. And eventually, their labor paid off: One of each character, Mascots, came to life. They breathed air, had red blood flowing through their veins, were real, physical creatures, but also remained gentle with the guests. Once they were unveiled, there was no longer a need for costumed performers to roam around Indigo Park. They could also be trained to perform shows of their own, such as Finley and Lloyd, while the others could supervise their respective districts! It was a win win!
However, not everyone was so pleased with the results. The performers that once roamed the streets found themselves without jobs, only some kept around to care for the new Mascots, their betters, their replacements. And that made them furious. Why should these abominations, these stupid, ugly freaks replace them? Behind Indigo’s back, these disgruntled employees would begin their revenge slowly, minimally. Withholding a small amount of the supplies the Mascots needed, occasional cruel words. As time went on, this turned into a coping mechanism, the treatment of the Mascots progressing into physical violence, vile, cutting words on the regular basis.
Sometime before this Lloyd would end up giving up the title of main character to Rambley, who had gained immense popularity, even more than Lloyd himself. While it annoyed the proud Lloyd to be first mate, he would hand over the title graciously, partially because Rambley had always been jealous of Lloyd’s popularity and fame, and maybe, just maybe, this change would do them all good. Their abuse had been escalating, much worse than any thought possible. Salem was the only one to oppose this decision, thinking that it was all only to the benefit of Rambley. Mollie was the opposite, supportive of her best friend. And Finley … well, there was no way to consistently speak with the reptile. He was always kept in Oceanic Odyssey, far away from their cages underneath Jetsream Junction. And besides, none of the four particularly … liked Finley. Sure, Rambley had befriended the sea serpent, but that was done moreso to have some rapport and sway over the gentle giant, who was much too shy, like, ~obnoxiously~ ~shy.~ He was always so gloomy, so pessimistic, so willing to accept whatever came his way. No, Finley was definitely not an agent of change, but of pitiful complacence, locked away with his prized shell collection.
However, things did not improve at all. In fact, it only got worse. Tension between the Mascots was at an all time high, Rambley having become hurtful to even his best friend Mollie. He was still suspicious of Lloyd, convinced the lion would steal back his position as ringleader. Salem and Rambley, and thus with Mollie, also began to sour drastically. Salem was convinced that Rambley wasn’t doing anything to help the five. After all, he and Mollie practically abandoned Finley, someone who they claimed was a ‘friend’. Lloyd too became frustrated with the raccoon, Salem whispering in his ears, convincing him that Rambley had only pushed for Lloyd’s demotion to finally be the one above Lloyd, to have more power.
Mollie was soon caught in the crossfire of a particularly intense feud, Salem and Lloyd on one side, Rambley by himself on the other. Rambley, her best friend in the whole wide world. Rambley, that same friend who would sometimes be mean to Mollie for no apparent reason. However, no matter what Rambley had done to their relationship, it wasn’t Rambley’s fault. It was one time when Lloyd became particularly aggressive that Mollie had to finally end this.
The fault does not belong to Rambley! “Not Rambley! He hurts Lloyd! He hurts Lloyd!”
And suddenly, it clicked for the Mascots. No matter how much some of the Mascots didn’t like each other, there was one person they all could agree to hate: Isaac Indigo. Their creator who had left the newborn animals to the mercy of vengeful, spiteful, horrible people who did nothing but spit upon and abuse the Mascots. It was decided that they would fight back. They would show those humans that they were not muzzled dogs, but barely contained predators.
The next time the Mascots were in the presence of these Ranglers, Lloyd finally snapped. It was a particularly brutal day, and Lloyd would suffer no longer. With a crippling roar, Lloyd launched himself at the Ranglers, the other Mascots following suit.
Isaac Indigo had walked into work expecting the day to be like usual, but it was to his horror that he learned of the Mascots attack upon their Ranglers. Calling a hasty evacuation, guests were shoved outside of the park with no explanation, no answers. Even the authorities would not be able to provide answers. No, they couldn’t learn of such a thing; it would ruin Isaac Indigo and all that he had worked for.
Temporarily, the entire park fell under the control of the Mascots, who were a bit shocked with how easy it was to win their freedom. However, their victory would not last. They all would suffer the consequences.
Lloyd was deemed the biggest threat to Indigo’s plans, so he had to be the one dealt with first. But how? The scientists that Indigo had hired came up with a plan; repurpose the Critter Cuffs to make a high enough pitch to incapacitate the lion, before locking him up for good in his theater. Alongside this, in order to better guarantee the safety of their people, a resuscitation feature had been added to potentially save an employee's life, if it came down to it.
Luring the beast to his stage area, the humans spring their trap, their Critter Cuffs wailing, racking Lloyd with so much pain that he couldn’t do anything but curl up into a ball. With the help of some engineers, they lock Lloyd in his own theater, a special clearance required to even access the area. This is where they toss most of the assets Indigo Park does not wish anyone see. Research papers, binders, notebooks, it’s all scattered here. And while here, Indigo decides to deal with Mollie Macaw as well.
Mollie is dangerous in that she knows planes and how to use them. They’re massive weapons, so, the way to disarm the bomb that is Mollie is to lock Jetstream Junction behind the Critter Cuffs, as well as a massive lock and key. The key itself would be stored at the very back of Lloyd’s theater, a place where only they would know to look. And once they seal the doors one final time, Mollie, Rambley, and Salem would have no access to it.
Finley would be left to his own devices; he’s contained in his attraction and as long as they don’t approach, they’ll be fine. The remaining Mascots can’t hide there forever either, and the humans know that. Even if Finley is a deterrent, the humans would eventually invent a way to deal with the serpent, who would be unwilling to resist for too long.
And thus, two Mascots were dealt with, one Mascot crippled. Only Salem and Rambley remained threats with their rides and arsenals, though Mollie is still dangerous with her sharp beak and claws.
After some time, Mascot Rambley and Salem decide to retreat further into Indigo Park, further away from the entrance. Their movements were too easy to track with that blasted Artificial Intelligence system watching through the bountiful cameras. Mollie, however, can’t bear to leave her home, her hangar. She tries to reason with the two others, but ultimately, no agreement can be reached. Salem and Rambley would withdrawn, and Mollie would come, if she wanted to.
Eventually, the two sneakiest Mascots, once sworn enemies, were now the only one the other could rely on. Now brother and sister, they tried their best to weather the storm, but were ultimately dealt with. Mollie, grief-stricken with the loss of her home and being abandoned by the ones she called friend, had no will to fight anymore.
This entire process took almost ten years, finally ending in 2015, while the park had been closed in 2006. Outside, people slowly forgot about the enigmatic end to the once beloved park, distracted by the rapid expansion of other sources of fun and media. Indigo, saddened by the fate of what he once thought of as his greatest achievement, didn’t have the heart to tear the place down. It was too dangerous, so he merely bribed the local authorities to close it off from curious onlookers. He would command the AI Rambley to have most of his files wiped concerning the fate of the park, wiping all data concerning the back and forth between humans and their experiments brought to life. He’d be restricted to the Registration Center, cut off from the actual park, and only present in one computer until Indigo found a way to salvage the situation. And that’s where Isaac Indigo left Indigo Park.
Mascot Mollie is left alone to wander the park, all her friends gone, missing. She stumbles into Rambley Railroad, the only place that she can see all her friends, before she stops at Salem’s exhibit. Eyes narrowing in hate, Mollie remembers that it was Salem that pushed and manipulated them all to fight back. If Salem hadn’t been there, none of this would have happened. This leads Mascot Mollie on a destructive rampage, wrecking the whole area as much as she could. She eventually stumbles upon an animatronic version of herself, which shocks her when it repeats Mollie’s own words, almost like snidely trying to hurt Mollie with her own words. “Not Rambley! He hurts Lloyd! He hurts Lloyd!” Once again angered, Mascot Mollie pounds upon the robot until the lights fade from its painted eyes, slumped in a pile of metal rods and broken brick. From there, Mascot Mollie leaves, vowing to stay away from the place.
However, what Indigo did not account for was an urban explorer duo that made it their life mission to explore a wide variety of places. Laura and Ed made quite the dynamic duo, always exploring what they wanted, where they wanted, how they wanted. Though they trespassed and sometimes even burgled, they were never caught by the authorities, and their concealed presences on their channel was enough for the two to not be charged and arrested.
However, the two found themselves in a weird limbo. All of their newest explorations lacked a certain ‘oomph’, with even their viewers noticing the lack of excitement and passion of the two. So, Ed decides to set his sights on a big fish: Indigo Park.
Laura, his partner, is instantly worried by Ed’s choice. All the places they went to before were practically abandoned, the maximum they had to worry about were old motion detectors and an occasional camera or two. Indigo Park, however, would most likely be very secure, swarming with cops, even, so she tries to dissuade Ed, but Ed only becomes more pumped to break inside. Resigned, Laura promised assistance if Ed could find a way inside. Ed finally goes to this famed Indigo Park, home of so many of his treasured memories as a child, intent on having all of his personal questions answered.
It is to his surprise that the place is so easy to slip into. All he had to do was avoid the occasional patrol car, climb a fence, and viola, he was there. The entrance gates being locked up, however, was a bummer, but maybe the Registration Center would have some information. It would be even more of a shock to discover an AI Rambley, the same that Indigo had locked there.
AI Rambley would guide Ed, the first visitor in exactly eight years, inside, Ed collecting all sorts of goodies, such as plushies, ears, drinking containers, and even a vintage Rambley costume mask. However, Ed is disappointed by the way the AI practically ignores the state of disrepair Indigo Park has fallen into.
Lured by the sudden sound of Rambley speaking Mascot Mollie rushes over; Rambley came back for her! But it is to her horror that it’s merely a mockery of Mascot Rambley, that old AI speaking to a human! Mollie, wary and frightened of the implications of this, decides to merely follow cautiously.
Following the directions of the AI, Ed travels through Rambley Railroad, fixing the ride when in breaks in the wrecked zone of Salem the Skunk, her cutout and props left in broken pieces. It is during this ride that Ed senses he’s not alone, and notices Mollie Macaw stalking him. However, she’s not threatening in any way, so he leaves her be. Why antagonize this … Mascot? Person? Ed doesn’t know what to think of her, but maybe, if he’s careful, he won’t have to deal with her.
Ed is then directed to Jetsream Junction, but is disappointed to find it locked away, not only by Critter Cuff, but also by lock and key. The AI mentions a key in Lloyd’s theater, though, so he heads that way. What Ed does not expect to find is Mascot Lloyd himself, dozing on the stage. Quickly noticing Ed’s presence, however, Lloyd flees, remembering all too well of the danger that humans posed to him.
Unfortunately, Ed is left without AI Rambley’s presence, and Lloyd is slowly but surely pushed farther back into his domain. Lloyd at one point tries to attack, but the lion is clumsy. Though he can’t die of thirst or hunger, he still suffers from their effects, his body weak and dirty. Lloyd then leaves and lets this man do whatever he wants. Maybe if Lloyd hides in a corner, the scary human won’t come for him.
However, he is soon consumed by anger when he realizes that Ed takes the keys to Jetstream Junction. He can’t let this human escape, he might try to go and hurt Mollie! She’s probably locked in there like he’s locked in here!
Lloyd attacks, or tries to, at least. The accursed Critter Cuff wails, its high-pitched waves causing Lloyd to be paralyzed with pain. Once the sound stops, Lloyd runs away, his fears of torture reignited as he is subjected to pain he had not faced for almost twenty years.
Mascot Mollie, always lurking, heard the Critter Cuff go off, and she draws her conclusions well; Lloyd tried to fight the human, but was driven back, hurt and embarrassed in his own territory. From here, Mollie’s old, unresolved anger begins to build, following Ed as he opens up Jetstream Junction, much to her surprise. At first, she’s delighted. Finally, her old domain is open! She explores the place, running into Ed as they both take notice of one another. Perhaps she’ll let Ed go; he did do her a favor, after all.
But that notion is soon dissolved as she watched Ed run about the place like he owns it, Mollie’s anger mounting as he goes deeper into her home. Finally, she has enough. She attacks Ed, chasing him through the halls and tunnels Mollie so loves. Unfortunately, this final act turns out to be Mascot Mollie’s last. Just as she lunges for him, her head gets severed from her body by a metal door, her blood coating it and the surrounding environment bright red.
It is from here that AI Rambley is forced to acknowledge that this is not his familiar Indigo Park; it’s old and worn, the Mascots that once made people laugh now try to hunt them down. He forgets that they were abused because those files were wiped from him, and Mascot Mollie’s cries are very hard to discern as the echoes and Mascot Mollie’s own voice is ruined by age.
AI Rambley decides his best course of action is to enlist Ed’s help to repair the whole theme park. After all, he has all the information on how to go about it in his database, it just requires a physical body to do, something that the AI sorely lacks. And so, AI Rambley directs Ed toward the first place they need to kick back up: Oceanic Odyssey, home of the Mascot Finley. Perhaps this shy, reclusive sea snake won’t be trying to kill Ed.
On the way, though, Ed nearly stumbles upon the laboratories where the Mascots were made, so the AI makes sure to block that avenue. Ed was AI Rambley’s only hope of success, he wasn’t risking the man run away in terror from the sights and notes that likely were down there.
Ed finally reaches the Oceanic Odyssey attraction, pushing open the doors and following AI Rambley inside, catching a glimpse of a long, green, sea dragon in one of the aquariums …
END
Well, that’s about it! 12k words and 24 pages in, and I only covered the first chapter. Hoo boy …
I don’t think I need to reiterate that this is what I think happened, canonically. There will obviously be some wrong information due to the limited evidence I have to work with, and I intentionally remained vague during certain parts.
Despite that, I am very confident in a few ideas, such as the Mascot uprising, the weaponization of the Critter Cuff specifically against Lloyd the Lion, and the secret laboratories hidden behind that Royal Ranger Room area.
If you have any ideas of your own, let me know as well! I would love to theorize about some things that all of you think as well!
Also a huge shoutout and thank you to the creator of Indigo Park, Mason Myers, or UniqueGeese. The guy is insanely talented, considering this took him only one year to do. ONE! I can’t want to see the twists and turns he has to offer.
See you all later in Chapter 2! - Maddy

Exion has finally started to respond to my posts. It would be easier if Exion would unblock me and engage with me directly but they still refuse to do so. It would also be nice if they linked the posts they are responding to so anyone reading his posts can look up my posts. I made sure to do that for all his posts. In this post I’ll be responding to https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/98oVSczZYe.
For the list of parts in my series see https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/01K9X3Pjxj

In this post, I will be answering and refuting the individual who keeps writing posts about me and comments every second he gets trying to "refute" me and "expose" me. I am only doing this because some brothers and sisters have allowed themselves to be fooled by this dude.

In his last post before he started addressing my criticisms he made it clear he wouldn’t engage with my criticisms. It’s only after the mods told him to either respond or they’d remove his posts, as can be seen here https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/c1XSgLQlZe, that he started responding to me. Given those facts I find it hard to believe his reasons given here for responding to me.

He begins by discussing my translation of the word "ישוחח," which I interpret as "argue" or "put forth."

That’s not where I begin. There is some important context before that. The first part of my first post was about showing the general sloppy nature of his posts using examples which he acknowledged his mistake, are things someone who knows Hebrew would be unlikely to make, and which he later copied elsewhere without fixing the mistake. The issue of ישוחח is just one part of this.

Firstly, in Biblical Hebrew, verb forms such as Qal and Piel (often referred to as Polel in some grammatical traditions) are distinguished by their specific diacritic markings (i.e., vowel points and consonantal diacritics).

Nope. The difference between the Qal and Polel forms in this case are not just in the diacritical marks but also have consonant differences.

Since I believe that the Masoretes distorted the Old Testament by adding these diacritics to reach a deviant interpretation, I do not consider them at all. I read the Old Testament without any diacritics. This is something he has yet to understand

Again in this case it’s not just the diacritical marks. I also understand Exion rejects them and in my responses I give reasons why his diacritical mark suggestions don’t work.

He later argues that the ancient Christian manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint, etc.) must agree with my claims and not with the Masoretic renderings of the Hebrew text, a conclusion he bases on thin air. I ask: Why is that so? Can you give us one good reason for this conclusion? You can't! He says this only because he considers these Christian manuscripts as divinely revealed criteria and translations.

Note the Septuagint was written by Jews not Christians. I’ve also given my reasons for why those should agree with Exion. He ignores those reasons and then attributes different reasons I never said. I’ll repeat again, Exion’s theory that he’s stated multiple times is that when the Masoretes added the diacritical marks they intentionally added ones that change the original meaning of the text to cover prophecies about Mohammed and Islam. He then claims he is discovering the original true meaning of the verses. If this is true then pre Masorete texts would still have the original meaning. Also any sources from after the Masoretes but which weren’t influenced by them should still have the original meaning. Also any before Mohammed and Islam wouldn’t have the same motivation to hide prophecies about Mohammed and Islam.

The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts,

This is a textbook example of an ad hoc assumption. An ad hoc assumption is when an assumption is added without any evidence to modify a theory for the sole purpose of avoiding falsification of the theory by some evidence. Since these sources that should agree with Exion don’t agree he added a new assumption without evidence to modify his theory to avoid falsification.
It’s also a problematic assumption. The Masoretes were Jews. Jews and Christians were split a few hundred years earlier and so didn’t really influence each other. For the Septuagint this was written even before Christianity. It’s so far before Islam and Mohammed that it’s extremely unlikely they were trying to hide any prophecies about them. It’s one of our oldest sources for the text making them a good source for how early Jews understood the text. It serves as an excellent source for testing Exion’s claims since if they’re true we’d expect, at least a significant portion of the time, they’d agree with Exion. If no one else in history, even before the diacritical marks were added, agrees with Exion then Exion is not speaking the same language as everyone else.

In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.

Here is what Exion said previously, “Regarding the phrase "Who will argue...", an alternative rendering could be "Who will claim..." However, using the word "argue" may be more faithful to the original text, as it carries a connotation of "complaining" or "disputing" rather than simply making a statement or engaging in ordinary conversation. This nuance helps capture the intended meaning more accurately.”
They specifically note the nuance of the meaning ‘complain’. What they failed to notice is that meaning is only part of the Qal form not the Polel. Both their original and new dictionary citation show this. Since the verb in question is in the Polel form that meaning doesn’t apply. Both source clearly listed the two different forms and the meanings for both. Either this is another case of Exion not reading his sources properly or he didn’t realize the correct form of the verb. Either way it shows the general unreliability of Exion.

Thus, he has fixated on this specific word, insisting it is (without a shadow of a doubt) in the Polel form (because his Pauline forefathers said so)

Actually I insist it’s in the Polel because I understand the different verb congregations. It’s not just diacritical marks but consonant differences as well. A key way we can tell is that the final consonant, ח, is duplicated.

Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:

This whole section is a lengthy that follows completely misses the point. Here is the original discussion, https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/s/f3XrmqDNqi. Like back then his response misses the point. I go on to note how is translation depends upon connecting two parks of the sentence where the diacritical marks have a break. I asked given all the mistakes he’s made up to that point, with the mix up of the Qal and Polel being the most recent at that time, why should we trust him over the Masoretes. The idea was to show how Exion is unreliable and doesn’t know Hebrew so he can’t be trusted over Hebrew speakers. He doesn’t justify why we shouldn’t take a break at that section, we’re just supposed to trust him but with all the mistakes he makes we can’t trust him. Furthermore after adjusting his translation to accommodate the Polel meaning the next day he copied his post to this subreddit without making the same correction but leaving the mistaken Qal meaning.

I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:

Nope. I never gave my own translation for this verse. He could have just checked the discussion but instead he made another sloppy mistake where he misrepresented what someone else has said. The discussion is public for anyone to read it themselves and see I never said that.

He goes on to say that I quoted from a fictitious source, which is not true at all. I simply didn’t bother looking through my entire library to find a quote I mistakenly mis-referenced, mainly because the quote turned out to be quite irrelevant, and I don’t waste my time like that.

That’s just an excuse. After giving the original citation a few people tried and couldn’t find it. He was pressed on the issue. Finally after some back and forth he gave a new book name and new author. However, the citation still couldn’t be found in that new book. It was at that point where he just ignored any further requests for proving the source exists. This is the first time since then he’s acknowledged it. Given that course of events it’s strong evidence the citation doesn’t actually exist. Until he provides proof the citation actually exists we should take the citation as fictitious. Though even if the source does exist his acknowledgment of a wrong citation is still evidence of his sloppy work and unreliability with representing sources, something he does very often.

So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered.

He never did. For the issue about copying the verse number and making it part of the verse all he could say before is that it’s a minor mistake that I’m overblowing. However, as I note the error is not a minor one but actually requires several points of failure, some of which are hard to accidentally make. E.g. removing the space between the verse number and first word after copying takes intentional action. For the pronoun suffixes his response boils down to just claiming every single person who has ever translated it is wrong and he is right. He refused to give a general account of pronoun suffixes that supports his translation along with a source to back up his account. I on the other hand took a picture of my Hebrew textbook showing the full chart to prove he is wrong.

Regarding the stone God mentions that was to be placed in the Temple of God, he says that it is saying

Notice in this section of his response he changes his original translation to include the second instance of the word stone that he previously missed. This acknowledges that he was originally wrong and missed that word. He just tries to rework the translation have that second occurrence of the word stone while still referring to God’s stone. Let’s see if it works.

The next word is אל: This is taken as a preposition according to them, and it generally means "to" or "toward," and never "upon." It is used to indicate direction or movement towards something. While the following word is, again, a stone "אבן."

I deal with his simplistic view of Hebrew pronouns in my pt 2. Once again we have the same problem. The relationship between pronouns in Hebrew compared to English is complicated. The pronoun in my pt 2 analysis has 8 pages in the BDB. אל has 2 pages. For על, which we be relevant in a moment, it has almost 6 pages for the proposition part. It’s far more complicated than giving a short list and only limiting translation to that list.
Regarding אל the BDB under note 2 points out there is a tendency to use it interchangeably with על. For על it lists upon as one of the meanings. Exion goes on to argue the limited set of meanings he gives don’t make sense and from that argues אל should instead be taken to be God. However, when we realized prepositions are more complicated than he makes them out to be and that אל can mean upon this argument fails.

Here, "אל־אבן" would translate to "God's stone" or "stone of God."

Here is the chapter from my textbook on the construct relationship singular. https://imgur.com/a/TWa8x4B. Take the first example. The first word on Hebrew is סוּס which means horse. The second word is הַמֶּלֶךְ which means the king. The translation given is “the horse of the king”. The second page gives examples of how this is translated into English with a ‘s. Based on that “the horse of the king” would be “the king’s horse”. This example shows us if we accept Exion’s claim אל means God and this is a construct relationship then the translation would actually be “God of stone” or “stone’s God”. Exion has flipped the words in his translation.

Thus, the phrase "מטרם שום־אבן אל־אבן בהיכל יהוה" would be understood as "before placing a stone as God's stone in the temple of YHWH" or "before placing a stone, God's stone, in the temple of YHWH"

Actually with the correct word order we’d have “before placing a stone, God of stone, in the temple of YHWH”.

Or you could simply not take "El" as a construct state. In Hebrew, a noun followed by another noun can indicate possession without needing a construct state (i.e. the equivalent of adding 's in English). This is often called "smikhut" or construct form, but it is not always necessary to explicitly form it.

This is confused. He thinks construct state refers to a specific different form or the noun but the possession meaning doesn’t require that different form. My textbook shows that’s mistaken. Yes it’s true the possession meaning doesn’t require a different form, however it’s still called the construct state. This is evident from my textbook. It notes at the bottom of the second page the construct state is sometimes the same as the absolute state. I didn’t mean to say Exion was taking it as having a different form from the absolute state but was pointing out he takes the phrase as indicating possession. That’s why I said if we add the missing word at take the phrase as indicating possession we’d get “stone’s God’s stone”.

This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why.

As my textbook proves it’s him that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Explicitly contradicting your claim that it doesn't exist, but you didn't know that because you have probably never even read the entirety of the chapter to begin with. The Temple was already there. A stone was to be placed in it, God's stone, the black stone of the House of God, and not that it was to be built or built anew. This is why I even wrote the article, because the temple of God was already in existence. How you could have missed this, if you've read the chapter in it entirety, is very baffling to me.

What’s baffling to me is how someone can be so confident and condescending while being so wrong. Not only did Exion fail to research the historical context of the literature he tries to interpret, he failed to notice my summary of the history. Haggai gives explicit historical markers for when the prophecies were made. “In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest:” Haggai‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬ ‭ESV‬‬. This places the prophecy in 520 B.C. This was after the Babylonians conquered Israel (specifically the southern kingdom as the northern was already conquered), brought them into exile, destroyed the first temple, the Persians conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews back to Israel to rebuilt the temple. They started to built the temple but stoped when opposition arose. Haggai’s prophecies are about pushing the Jews to continue rebuilding the temple. You can read about the fall of Israel by the Babylonians at the end of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. You can read about the return to Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah (note the events in Ezra are before those in Nehemiah).
Exion mentions Haggai 2:3 to disprove me. This is another case of him misrepresenting his sources. Let’s analyze it carefully part by part.
"Who among you is left, who saw this house in its former glory?” The word former indicates it had that glory in the past but no longer has it. That is because the previous temple was destroyed.
“And as you see it now”. This calls to attention a comparison of the former glory with the current glory.
“is it not as nothing in your eyes?" This expresses the current glory calling it nothing in their eyes. That’s because the previous temple was destroyed and not yet rebuilt.
Also check out these verses: ““Thus says the Lord of hosts: These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord.” Then the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, “Is it a time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house lies in ruins? Now, therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. You have sown much, and harvested little. You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill. You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm. And he who earns wages does so to put them into a bag with holes. “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider your ways. Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may be glorified, says the Lord. You looked for much, and behold, it came to little. And when you brought it home, I blew it away. Why? declares the Lord of hosts. Because of my house that lies in ruins, while each of you busies himself with his own house. Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce. And I have called for a drought on the land and the hills, on the grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the ground brings forth, on man and beast, and on all their labors.” Haggai‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭11 ‭ESV‬‬. It’s pretty clear the previous temple lies in ruins and God is calling them to rebuild it.

This is why Jacob

Jacob lived long before the temple was built. His life is recorded in Genesis. There is a lot of history in between Jacob’s life in Genesis and the building of the temple in 1 Kings/2 Chronicles. Either Exion is completely ignorant of the history he is commenting on or he’s cherry picking which parts he wants to accept.

Lying and adding words to the Word of God to make it look like another House would be raised.

But that’s literally what happened in history. The first temple was destroyed and the later rebuilt. Again check out the books I mentioned for the historical background, especially Ezra which records the events during the time Haggai was prophesying.

The preposition "the" is not there before "Chemdat," while it is before "Goyim" (heathens), which makes sense because "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)" and doesn't translate to "The treasure of all the heathens (will come)," as they have it.

Exion takes the lack of the definite article before chemdat as indicating it shouldn’t be translated with a “the” as its indefinite. He then argues taking chemdat the traditional way doesn’t make sense without the definite article so we should instead take it as a name. This again shows he doesn’t know Hebrew.
Note Exion translates it as Chemdat of. He interprets it as possession indicating he takes the Hebrew as being in the construct state. I linked above the chapter on the construct state. The first page notes a noun in the construct state never has the definite article. Instead the the last noun as the definite article then the noun in the construct state is also definite, and if the last noun is indefinite then the noun in the construct state is indefinite. Exion also acknowledges the last noun as having the definite article. When we actually understand the construct relationship we see that while there is no definite article on chemdat it’s still definite since it’s in the construct form with the last noun having the definite article. This undermines his argument for why chemdat is a name.

The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens,"

The BDB lists this word as meaning nations/people. Heathen has very negative connotations which are not necessarily implied by the word.

He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists;

Again look at the historical markers Haggai gives and the historical books for the historical background. Also look at the passage I quoted from Haggai 1 which clearly mentions the current temple in ruins and God calling the people to rebuild it. The promise God is making in Haggai 2:7 is about the new temple being greater than the former.

Going back to Haggai 2, the 18th verse also confirms that the Temple already was there:
"Consider, please, your heart from this day and onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the temple of the Lord was founded, consider your heart."

This particular section is Haggai 2:10-19. By this time the Jews started rebuilding the temple again and had laid the foundation. Haggai 2:15 and 18 are parallel passages calling the people to consider the time since that work on rebuilding the temple was done. God then points to the blessing they’ve experienced since then. That is in contrast to the hardships listed in Haggai 1:10-11 that God says we’re because they weren’t rebuilding his temple.

Nevertheless, he is right about one thing regarding this chapter: it does not mention the new moon to new moon and the end of the Sabbath—that was in Isaiah 66. My mistake.

Yes it is a mistake and it is one of way too many to count where he messes up representing his source in some way.

the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End")

Actually it can’t. I missed this in my post but u/c0d3rman caught it in his comment on Exion’s post. The definition Exion gives in his post is the verb “to cease”. However, “an end” is not a verb but a noun. His translation doesn’t match his own definition.

but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "Sabbath."

Because as a noun it means Sabbath.

A literal translation of the phrase in the 23rd verse would be:
‎>שבת (shabbat) - "Sabbath"
‎>בשבתו (be-shabbato) - "His Sabbath"
‎>יבוא (yavo) - "it will come"

Putting יבוא as part of this phrase has 3 problems. First it breaks the parallel in grammar and idea with the previous phrase. Second the subject of the verb then becomes the sabbath but that’s not possible. The gender of the verb and subject need to match but sabbath is feminine while יבוא is masculine. Third Exion’s translation has יבוא translated twice, both as part of this phrase and as part of the following phrase. However the word only occurs once in Hebrew so it can’t be translated twice into English as a part of 2 different phrases.
I also explained how this phrase is an idiom in my first post. I referenced the BDB which explains how we know it’s an idiom and what the idiom means, which corresponds to the traditional translation. The verse is not talking about a sabbath coming to a sabbath or coming to an end. It’s saying the frequency that all flesh shall come to worship before God.
I’ve mentioned the BDB often as a source. For those unaware there is an online version where words can be searched, https://www.sefaria.org/BDB. I’m mentioning this because unlike Exion I want to be sure people can easily find the sources I reference. If anyone has trouble finding any particular word I’m not sure how to link to specific words but I’m happy to take pics of my physical copy.
u/TheQuranicMumin you said “If he fails/refuses to do this, we will remove his posts for misinformation.” Can we agree already this counts as a failure to respond and consider his posts misinformation or do I really need to continue addressing his posts/responses?

import libraries

import time
from Room import Color
from Room import Grabbable
from Room import Floor
from Room import Room
import sys
from GameFunctions import Go,Look,Take,Open,LastConvo,Player,Other,Mystery,Divine,Color,Clue,Death,Consequences
from tkinter import *
from functools import partial

constants

don't delete this!

VERBS = [ "go", "look", "take", "open" ] # the supported vocabulary verbs
QUIT_COMMANDS = [ "exit", "quit", "bye" ] # the supported quit commands

creates the rooms

creates the floors

def CreateFloors():

floors = []

main_Floor = Floor("Main Floor")

floors.append(main_Floor)

underground = Floor("Underground")

floors.append(underground)

currentFloor = main_Floor

return floors, currentFloor

creates and prints titlescreen

def TitleScreen():

i = open("title.txt", "r")

image = []

lines = []

line1 = ""

for line in i:

image.append(line.rstrip())

x = 0

#colors the title screen

for line in image:

lined = ""

for char in line:

#red arc

if char == " ":

colored = Color.REDB+" "+Color.END

lined = lined + colored

#black background

elif char == "'":

colored = Color.BLACKGROUND+char+Color.END

lined = lined +colored

#white background for text

elif char == '▄' or '▄' or '█' or '▀'or'█':

colored = Color.WHITE+Color.BLACKGROUND+char+Color.END

lined = lined + colored

lines.append(lined)

print(lines[x])

x += 1

return image

MAIN

START THE GAME!!!

class Game(Frame):
def __init__(self, master):
Frame.__init__(self,master)

self.button1.pack(side = RIGHT)

self.button2.pack(side=RIGHT)

self.L1.pack(side=LEFT)

self.I1.pack(side=RIGHT)

self.I1.grid(row = 0, rowspan=3, column=0)

def CreateFloors(self):
floors = []
main_Floor = Floor("Main Floor")
floors.append(main_Floor)
underground = Floor("Underground")
floors.append(underground)
currentFloor = main_Floor
return floors, currentFloor
def createRooms(self,floors):

a list of rooms will store all of the rooms

living_room through bedroom are the four rooms in the "mansion"

currentRoom is the room the player is currently in (which can be one of living_room through bedroom)

Game.rooms = []
main_Floor = floors[0]
underground = floors[1]

first, create the room instances so that they can be referenced below

living_room = Room("Living Room")
kitchen = Room("Kitchen")
pantry = Room("pantry")
bedroom = Room("Bedroom")
library = Room("Library")
hallway = Room("Hallway")
cellA = Room("Cell A")
cellB = Room("Cell B")

grabbables

bedroom_key = Grabbable("bedroom_key",living_room)
ceremonial_knife = Grabbable("ceremonial_knife",bedroom)
mapp = Grabbable("map",library)
badge = Grabbable("badge",living_room)

colored grabbables

ckey = bedroom_key.addColor()
cknife = ceremonial_knife.addColor()
cmap = mapp.addColor()
cbadge = badge.addColor()

Living Room

living_room.description = ("A cozy room, warmer than anywhere else in the house.")
living_room.floor = Floor(main_Floor)
living_room.addExit("east", kitchen)
living_room.addExit("south", bedroom)
living_room.addExit("west", library)
living_room.addGrabbable(badge.name)
living_room.addItem("chair", ("It is made of wicker. No one is sitting on it."))
living_room.addItem("fireplace", "'Crackling and smoking, must be why it's so much warmer in here'")
living_room.addItem("table", ("It is made of oak. Your badge rests on it."))
Game.rooms.append(living_room)

Kitchen

kitchen.description = ("Oddly clean, but a slightly off smell puts you in unease.")
kitchen.floor = Floor(main_Floor)
kitchen.addExit("west", living_room)
kitchen.addExit("north", pantry)
kitchen.addGrabbable(bedroom_key.name)
kitchen.addItem("countertop", "'Huh, granite and on top of it there's a key'")
kitchen.addItem("fridge", "'Gotta be a better time for snacks.'")
kitchen.addItem("pot", "'whoever is still doing the dishes needs a raise'")
Game.rooms.append(kitchen)

bedroom reactions

bmw1 = "'this much blood makes me nauseous, I gotta get out of here and call for backup'"
bmw2 = ("A message scrawled across the wall in blood: Too late.")
bmw3 = "'I couldn't just leave'"

Bedroom

bedroom.description = ("The walls and furniture layered with blood, someone was killed brutally in this room. Despite that it looks faintly familiar")
bedroom.floor = Floor(main_Floor)
bedroom.addExit("north", living_room)
bedroom.addGrabbable(ceremonial_knife.name)
bedroom.addItem("bed",("Covered in circles of blood with a "+cknife+" in the center."))
bedroom.addItem("walls",bmw1+"\n"+bmw2+"\n"+bmw3+"\n")
Game.rooms.append(bedroom)

Library

playerReactL = "'Never expected to see a library at all in a place like this, much less one this big.'"
library.description = ("A large library filled to the brim with books and a large office area sectioned off\n")+playerReactL
library.floor = Floor(main_Floor)
library.addExit("east", living_room)
library.addGrabbable(mapp.name)
library.addItem("chair", "'Real comfy, I'd take this after the investigation if it wasn't so creepy in here.'")
library.addItem("desk", "'looks official, and theres a map, whoever works here must have built the place.'")
library.addItem("bookshelf", "'Massive collection, but somethings off about this.'")
Game.rooms.append(library)

hallway

hallway.floor = Floor(underground)
hallway.description = ("A cold and empty stone hallway, covered in mold and stains. A faint sobbing echoes through")
hallway.addExit("north", cellB)
hallway.addExit("south", cellA)
hallway.addExit("up", library)
Game.rooms.append(hallway)

CellA

cellA.floor = Floor(underground)
playerreactC = ("A... are these cells?")
cellA.description = playerreactC+("\nA small filthy room with rusting bars")
cellA.addExit("north", hallway)
cellA.addItem("chains", "they look old, but they steel is still strong")
Game.rooms.append(cellA)

CellB

cellB.floor = Floor(underground)
Game.rooms.append(cellB)

changes Floors

Floor(main_Floor).addExit("down", hallway)
Floor(underground).addExit("up", library)

adds rooms to Floors

Floor(main_Floor).addRoom(living_room)
Floor(main_Floor).addRoom(kitchen)
Floor(main_Floor).addRoom(bedroom)
Floor(main_Floor).addRoom(pantry)
Floor(main_Floor).addRoom(library)
Floor(underground).addRoom(hallway)
Floor(underground).addRoom(cellA)
Floor(underground).addRoom(cellB)

adds maps to rooms

living_room.maps = ("Map1.txt")
kitchen.maps = ("Map2.txt")
pantry.maps = ("Map3.txt")
bedroom.maps = ("Map4.txt")
library.maps = ("Map5.txt")
hallway.maps = ("Bmap1.txt")
cellA.maps = ("Bmap3.txt")
cellB.maps = ("Bmap2.txt")
living_room.image = ("Pictures/Living_Room.gif")
kitchen.image = ("Pictures/Kitchen.gif")
pantry.image = ("Map3.txt")
bedroom.image = ("Pictures/Bedroom.gif")
library.image = ("Pictures/Library.gif")
hallway.image = ("Pictures/Hallway.gif")
cellA.image = ("Pictures/CellA.gif")
cellB.image = ("Pictures/CellB.gif")

set room 1 as the current room at the beginning of the game

Game.currentRoom = living_room

currentRoom = bedroom

Game.inventory = []
return Game.rooms, Game.currentRoom
def setupGUI(self):

organize the GUI

self.pack(fill=BOTH, expand=1)

setup the player input at the bottom of the GUI

the widget is a Tkinter Entry

set its background to white

bind the return key to the function process() in the class

bind the tab key to the function complete() in the class

push it to the bottom of the GUI and let it fill horizontally

give it focus so the player doesn't have to click on it

Game.player_input = Entry(self, bg="white")
Game.player_input.bind("", self.process)

Game.player_input.bind("", self.complete)

Game.player_input.pack(side=BOTTOM, fill=X)
Game.player_input.focus()

setup the image to the left of the GUI

the widget is a Tkinter Label

don't let the image control the widget's size

img = None
Game.image = Label(self, width=WIDTH // 2, image=img)
Game.image.image = img
Game.image.pack(side=LEFT, fill=Y)
Game.image.pack_propagate(False)

setup the text to the right of the GUI

first, the frame in which the text will be placed

text_frame = Frame(self, width=WIDTH // 2, height=HEIGHT // 2)

the widget is a Tkinter Text

disable it by default

don't let the widget control the frame's size

Game.text = Text(text_frame, bg="lightgray", state=DISABLED)
Game.text.pack(fill=Y, expand=1)
text_frame.pack(side=TOP, fill=Y)
text_frame.pack_propagate(False)

Creating a canvas for the bottom half to easily navigate between rooms

Add north and south arrows as well in the code.

Feel free to use your own directional images.

North and South arrows are also provided to you as well.

Adding an arrow pointing to the east.

canvas = Frame(self, width=WIDTH // 2, height=HEIGHT // 2)
Game.eastimage = PhotoImage(file="Pictures/east.png")
Game.east = Button(canvas, image=Game.eastimage, command=partial(self.runCommand, "go east"))
Game.east.pack(side=RIGHT)

Adding an arrow pointing to the west.

Game.westimage = PhotoImage(file="pictures/west.png")
Game.west = Button(canvas, image=Game.westimage, command=partial(self.runCommand, "go west"))
Game.west.pack(side=LEFT)
canvas.pack(side=TOP, fill=Y)
canvas.pack_propagate(False)
def setRoomImage(self):
if (Game.currentRoom == None):

if dead, set the skull image

Game.img = PhotoImage(file="Pictures/Cabin.gif")
else:

otherwise grab the image for the current room

print(Game.currentRoom.image)
Game.img = PhotoImage(file=Game.currentRoom.image)

display the image on the left of the GUI

Game.image.config(image=Game.img)
Game.image.image = Game.img
def setStatus(self, status):

enable the text widget, clear it, set it, and disable it

Game.text.config(state=NORMAL)
Game.text.delete("1.0", END)
if (Game.currentRoom == None):

if dead, let the player know

Game.text.insert(END, "You are dead. The only thing you can do now\nis quit.\n")
else:

otherwise, display the appropriate status

Game.text.insert(END, "{}\n\n{}\n{}\nYou are carrying: {}\n\n".format(status, Game.currentRoom.name,Game.currentRoom.description, Game.inventory))
Game.text.config(state=DISABLED)

support for tab completion

add the words to support

if (Game.currentRoom != None):
Game.words = VERBS + QUIT_COMMANDS + Game.inventory + Game.currentRoom.exits + Game.currentRoom.items + Game.currentRoom.grabbables
def process(self, event, action=""):
self.runCommand()
Game.player_input.delete(0, END)
def gameStart(self,canvas,action=""):
time.sleep(.5)
Game.canvas.destroy()
g.play()
def runCommand(self,action=""):

# an introduction

clue = False
currentRoom = Game.currentRoom
inventory = Game.inventory

# Game.images = []

# Game.lines = []

time.sleep(3)

print("=" * 80)

print(Color.BOLD+"you wake up on a strange couch"+Color.END)

clue = False

lib = Game.rooms[3]

# play forever (well, at least until the player dies or asks to quit)

while (True):

print(rooms(library.name))

set the status so the player has situational awareness

the status has room and inventory information

status = "{}\nYou are carrying: {}\n".format(currentRoom, inventory)

if the current room is None, then the player is dead

this only happens if the player goes south when in room 4

exit the game

if (Game.currentRoom == None):

death() # you'll add this later

return

display the status

print("=" * 80)
print(status)

prompt for player input

the game supports a simple language of

valid verbs are go, look, and take

valid nouns depend on the verb

set the user's input to lowercase to make it easier to compare the verb and noun to known values

action = action.lower().strip()

exit the game if the player wants to leave

if (action == "quit"):
print(Color.BOLD+"\nThank you for playing"+Color.END)
sys.exit(0)

set a default response

response = "I don't understand. Try verb noun. Valid verbs are {}.".format(", ".join(VERBS))

split the user input into words (words are separated by spaces) and store the words in a list

words = action.split()

the game only understands two word inputs

if (len(words) == 2):

isolate the verb and noun

verb = words[0].strip()
noun = words[1].strip()

we need a valid verb

if (verb in VERBS):
if (verb == "go"):
response, currentRoom = Go(noun,currentRoom,inventory)
Game.currentRoom = currentRoom
elif (verb == "look"):
response = Look(noun,currentRoom,inventory,lib,rooms)
elif (verb == "take"):
response, inventory, clue = Take(noun,currentRoom,inventory,clue)
elif (verb == "open"):
response = Open(noun,inventory,currentRoom)

if knife is picked up, changes bookshelf description, and reads clue

if clue is True:
i = lib.items.index("bookshelf")
lib.itemDescriptions[i] = ("the shelf begins shifting")
response = response + ("\nOn the back of the knife a hint gleams\n")+ Other("'I cannot be avoided, I cannot be classified, Be Not Afraid'")
clue = False
if currentRoom.name == "Cell B":
LastConvo(inventory)
print("hi")
self.setStatus(response)
print("hi")
self.setRoomImage()
print("hi")
def startimg(self):
self.pack(fill=BOTH, expand=True)
Game.canvas = Frame(self, width=WIDTH , height=HEIGHT)
Game.titlepic = PhotoImage(file='Pictures/Cabin.gif')
Game.titlebutton = Button(Game.canvas, image=Game.titlepic, command=partial(self.gameStart, "start"))
Game.titlebutton.pack(fill=BOTH)
Game.canvas.pack(side=TOP, fill=BOTH)
Game.canvas.pack_propagate(False)

self.I1 = Label(master, image=self.img)

self.I1.grid(row = 0, rowspan=3, column=0)

image = canvas.create_image(50, 50, anchor=NE, image=Game.title)

def play(self):
Game.start = False

create the room instances

floors = self.CreateFloors()
self.createRooms(floors)

configure the GUI

self.setupGUI()

set the current room

self.setRoomImage()

set the initial status

self.setStatus("")
def process(self, event, action=""):
self.runCommand()
Game.player_input.delete(0, END)

class fullScreenImg(Frame):

def __init__(self, master):

Frame.__init__(self,master)

self.img = PhotoImage(file='Pictures/Cabin.gif')

self.I1 = Label(master, image=self.img)

#self.button1.pack(side = RIGHT)

#self.button2.pack(side=RIGHT)

#self.L1.pack(side=LEFT)

#self.I1.pack(side=RIGHT)

self.I1.grid(row = 0, rowspan=3, column=0)

WIDTH = 1000
HEIGHT = 700
window = Tk()
window.title ="Room Adventure"

while title == True:

fsi = fullScreenImg(window)

time.sleep(3)

title = False

g = Game(window)

play the game

g.startimg()
window.mainloop()

wait for the window to close

Leviathan, the Eikon of Water concept art
Leviathan, the lost Eikon of Water, has finally been found! After months of waiting, the Rising Tide downloadable content (DLC) has been released and with it, I am once again rambling about the mythological, religious, and cultural inspirations behind the Eikons of Final Fantasy XVI. If you would like to check out any of my previous posts on the subject of Eikons, you can find them here:

1.) Phoenix

2.) Ifrit

3.) Shiva

4.) Ramuh

5.) Garuda

6.) Titan

7.) Bahamut

8.) Odin

As I’ve said in the past, if you feel that I may have said something wrong, or if you would like to add to what information I have provided; by all means please do so. I absolutely welcome the discussion.
The sea serpent Leviathan, like most of the Eikons, has been a staple of the Final Fantasy series since its introduction as one of the original summons#Summon_Magic) from 1990’s Final Fantasy III. While modern usage of the terms “leviathan” and “behemoth” are often used to denote something large and imposing, these words actually originate as the names of two creatures from the Tanakh (or Hebrew Bible). According to the verses 40:15-41:34 in the Book of Job, Leviathan and Behemoth are two gigantic and nigh indestructible animals born around the same time as the creation of the first two humans Adam and Eve, with Behemoth residing over the wilderness east of the Garden of Eden called Duidain and Leviathan bound to the watery Abyss) as stated in verses 60:7-10 in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. While the term abyss may bring to mind the idea of a bottomless hole or even an underworld such as the Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol, or Christian Hell; the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, often uses the term abyss to instead refer to deep bodies of water. In fact, Abyss is the translated noun for the Hebrew Tehom, or the “deep” primordial waters from which the god Yahweh formed the world after the creation of light as stated by the verses 1:2-10 in the Book of Genesis; which is but one example of the cosmic ocean motif, whereby existence is conceptualized as originating from a watery void. I find it very interesting then that the Abyss is referenced several times in the Rising Tide DLC, such as in the name of Leviathan’s Eikonic ability Abyssal Tear; the Motes of Water adage “Know that even should you walk Abyss, our hands will guide you home” from the Minwu Arm Ring description; or the description of the Radiant Tidestrike weapon that says “Surge did the tide, the water rising as if it were some mighty whale stranding itself upon the shore. Behold, the Devourer of Worlds. The beast within whose foul belly our hopes are carried unto the Abyss. - Eikonomachy - Book of Currents 15:40-41”.
From the aforementioned verses of the diegetic Book of Currents, as well as one of the Active Time Lore Entries for Leviathan that states “Old writings clearly speak of Dominants past summoning great whale-like creatures capable of swallowing entire cities…”; we can possibly see a reference to Leviathan) swallowing the protagonist Firion and his allies on their way to the Mysidian Tower in Final Fantasy II. However, I would suggest that these quotes go further than mere references to past games and are actually an allusion to the parable of Jonah surviving in the belly of a whale from the eponymous Book of Jonah. For those unfamiliar with the story, the Hebrew prophet Jonah was tasked by God to preach on His behalf to the citizenry of Nineveh in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Jonah instead refuses the call, and attempts to sail across the sea to Tarshish. On the journey, Jonah and the sailors he is accompanied by are caught in a huge storm, and believing that Jonah’s dismissal of God is the cause, the sailors thus throw him overboard. God then sends a whale to swallow Jonah, with the intention of preventing the Israelite from drowning. Miraculously surviving in the whale’s stomach for 3 days, Jonah vows to do God’s bidding and is thus safely returned to shore, whereby he travels to Nineveh and beseeches the citizens to renounce their wicked ways, lest they be visited by calamity. This story is meant to illustrate that Yahweh is a merciful god who allows for second chances, giving not only Jonah, but also the Ninevites the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and redirect their course of actions.
With this parable in mind, I would like to mention that in 1949, literary professor Joseph Campbell published “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”; a work of comparative mythology in which he proposed his idea of the Monomyth (later called the Hero’s Journey). Campbell’s theory of the Monomyth posits that while most narratives involving a heroic protagonist may have differing contents, these stories also typically follow a similar pattern; that being a three-act structure comprised of 17 subset stages. One such stage in Campbell’s model is the Belly of the Whale (sometimes also referred to as the Abyss), one of the literally or figuratively lowest points in the story for the protagonist in which the hero must engage in introspection and commence a process of self-transformation if they are to be equipped to finish their journey. This stage acts as a symbolic death and rebirth for the protagonist, with some Christians even interpreting Jonah’s story as actually being an allegory for Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection.
A prime example of this stage can be seen in Carlo Collodi’s 1883 novel “The Adventures of Pinocchio”, whereby the eponymous puppet Pinocchio and his creator Geppetto are swallowed by the Terrible Dogfish; with the typically irresponsible and selfish Pinocchio instead performing a self-sacrificial act in order to save his “father”, which he is thus rewarded for by being brought back to life as a human by the Fairy with Turquoise Hair. Viewing the Pinnochio narrative as an example of a more modern mythical epic, Thomas J. Morrissey and Richard Wunderlich state in “Death and Rebirth in Pinocchio”; “Gods can die and be reborn, or rise from the dead. Such mythological events probably imitate the annual cycle of vegetative birth, death, and renascence, and they often serve as paradigms for the frequent symbolic deaths and rebirths encountered in literature. Two such symbolic renderings are most prominent: re-emergence from a journey to hell and rebirth through metamorphosis. Journeys to the underworld [Katabasis] are a common feature of Eurasian literary epics: Gilgamesh, Odysseus, Aeneas, and Dante all benefit from the knowledge and power they put on after such descents. Rebirth through metamorphosis, on the other hand, is a motif generally consigned to fantasy or speculative literature… These two figurative manifestations of the death-rebirth trope are rarely combined; however, Carlo Collodi’s great fantasy-epic, The Adventures of Pinocchio, is a work in which a hero experiences symbolic death and rebirth through both infernal descent and metamorphosis”. We as the player also experience this Belly of the Whale stage in Final Fantasy XVI, when our heroes Clive Rosfield and Jill Warwick confront the Dominant of Darkness Barnabas Tharmr on the seafloor of the sundered Naldia Narrow, appropriately labeled as the Abyss, whereby Clive is soundly defeated by Barnabas for a second time. Fleeing their assailant, Clive and Jill consummate their love for one another on the shore of Ash, with Clive acquiring a portion of the Eikon Shiva’s powers from Jill so that he may finally triumph over Barnabas in a battle of physical prowess and ideals; proving to the false prophet and his God that compassion and the desire for freedom will always overcome any adversity.
With all this talk of whales, I should mention that from the descriptions as given in the Book of Job, Behemoth sounds to resemble that of a large ox or hippopotamus, while Leviathan is suggested as being similar to that of the tanninim) or “great whales” mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Islamic folklore has its own variant of this terrestrial and aquatic duo, that being the large bull Kujata and the even larger whale Bahamut; as outlined by the medieval cosmographer Zakariya al-Qazwini in his seminal work “The Wonders of Creation”. Even though I am going to hazard a guess that the name of the Kuza Beast), a variant of the Behemoth enemy in several Final Fantasy games, is named after Kujata; it is quite obvious on the other hand that the draconic Eikon Bahamut borrows its name from the Islamic whale of the same name as well as the dragon god Bahamut) from the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. While the Book of Job describes Leviathan as being a whale or even a crocodile as suggested by a footnote in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, verse 27:1 in the Book of Isaiah instead equates Leviathan to a sea serpent or dragon, with the Book of Job description also making it a point to mention Leviathan’s fearsome fiery breath. Given its status as a tutelary god for the Japanese-inspired nation of Wutai in Final Fantasy VII, it could be argued that Leviathan in the Final Fantasy series also shares similarities with Eastern dragons, such as the Chinese Lóng or Japanese Ryū; beneficent, serpentine deities of water and rain.
It is presumed that the figure and name of Leviathan actually originates from the older Canaanite sea monster Lôtān, whose name in the Ugaritic language meant “coiled” and was given the epithets “the fugitive serpent” or “the wriggling serpent”. In the first two tablets of the fragmentary Ugaritic Baal Cycle text, the storm god Baal (Lord) Hadad engages in a feud with the deification of the sea Yammu) to succeed their father El) as the ruler of the gods. At some point in this first chapter of the Baal Cycle, Hadad strikes down the seven-headed serpent Lôtān, who given the missing pieces of the text, could either be a servant of or another name for Yammu, with it also being believed that the monster was a zoomorphic representation of the Lebanese Litani River. Why I bring this up is to illustrate that Hadad’s defeat of Lôtān is but one example of the Chaoskampf mytheme, a pattern found in numerous Indo-European mythologies whereby a younger storm god or culture hero representing order and human civilization slays an ancient serpent or dragon associated with water that represents primordial chaos); perhaps a sentiment held by early agricultural riverine civilizations wishing to triumph over the constant and often devastating threat of floods.
One of the oldest examples of this mytheme is that of the Mesopotamian god Marduk’s dismemberment of Tiamat. According to the Babylonian Enūma Eliš, in the beginning there existed only Tiamat, the female personification of salt water; and Abzu, the male personification of fresh water. From the union of the two primeval waters sprang forth the first generation of gods called the Anunnaki. One such god, Enki (or Ea) would capture and kill Abzu after he plotted to kill his children due to the commotion they were causing. Enraged by Enki’s actions, Tiamat gave birth to eleven monstrous children to wage war against the gods along with her new consort Kingu, who possessed the Tablet of Destinies); the mark of divine rule. Marduk, the son of Enki, challenged Tiamat and her monsters, eventually slaying his opponents with lightning and storm winds. Defeated, Tiamat’s body was sliced in twain, with the two halves becoming the sky and earth. From an earlier promise made with the Anunnaki and the Igigi (lesser gods) as well as the acquisition of the Tablet of Destinies from the beaten Kingu, Marduk was made king of the gods; later mixing the blood of Kingu with clay to also become the creator of mankind.
Through the lens of the Chaoskampf mytheme, we can start to see connections between Tiamat’s dismemberment, the defeat of the multi-headed Lôtān, and Leviathan form. The non-canonical Book of Enoch actually specifies that the land-dwelling Behemoth is male, while the aquatic Leviathan is female; possibly creating an inadvertent association between Leviathan and the sea goddess and mother of monsters Tiamat. This may also be why Leviathan’s Chronolith Trial is named the Hand of Tethys. While still following the moons of Saturn naming convention, it is very fitting that the trial is also named after the Greek Tethys); wife of the world-encompassing river Oceanus and mother to the male river gods and female water nymphs called the Potamoi and Oceanids, respectively. Furthering the connections to Tiamat and Lôtān, several accounts in the Hebrew Bible describe Yawheh triumphing over the forces of the sea, such as in Isaiah 51:9-10 “Awake, awake, arm of the Lord, clothe yourself with strength! Awake, as in days gone by, as in generations of old. Was it not you who cut Rahab) to pieces, who pierced that monster through? Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made a road in the depths of the sea so that the redeemed may cross over?” and Job 26:12-13 “By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces. By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent”. It is believed that Rahab, while occasionally used as a flowery term for Egypt or arrogance, was also a sea serpent either comparable to or synonymous with Leviathan. While Leviathan’s death at the hands of Yahweh in Isaiah 27:1 is viewed as a metaphor for the enemies of Israel who will submit to the Hebrew God, the Chaoskampf and the connection with the Canaanite Lôtān is further shown in verse 74:14 from the Book of Psalms, which says “Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness”; which is where the name of the trophy for beating Leviathan on Final Fantasy mode, Thou Brakest the Head, comes from.
Along with the account of Leviathan’s death in Psalms 74:12, several other Jewish sources, such as the Second Book of Esdras 6:47-52, the Apocalypse of Baruch 29:4, and the Bava Batra tractate in the Talmud state that Yahweh will slay Leviathan and Behemoth so that their flesh shall be given as food and shelter to the righteous during the End of Days and the Messianic Age. This may explain why the Behemoth King in FFXVI has several attacks referencing Christian eschatology from the Book of Revelation, such as the Four Horsemen; personifications of War, Conquest, Famine, and Death that herald the Last Judgment; and the Apocalypse, another term for a revelation which has since become synonymous with a cataclysmic end-time event, like the battle at Armageddon for instance. Leviathan and Behemoth’s statuses as eventual sacrifices is very similar to the role that Leviathan and its Dominant unfortunately play in Final Fantasy XVI.
Both DLCs, the Echoes of the Fallen and the Rising Tide, deal with themes of rectifying the sins of the past; whereby the Fallen and the Motes of Water engaged in questionable behavior in an attempt to create their own Mothercrystals to disastrous effect. The Motes of Water, a central focus of the Rising Tide, are a tribe originating from the southern coast of the continent of Ash and hosts to the Dominants of the Eikon Leviathan. After the loss of their Mothercrystal Drake’s Horn, the tribe migrated across the twin continent of Storm; where they were mercilessly persecuted by several groups, particularly the Greagorian faithful of the burgeoning Holy Empire of Sanbreque, causing the tribe and their Eikon to become “lost” to history. Due to their nomadic nature as well as Sanbreque’s similarities with the Roman and Holy Roman Empires, one could say that the Motes of Water mirror the Jewish Diaspora (exile) and transformation of the faith after the Roman Empire’s siege on Jerusalem) and the destruction of the Second Temple during the First Jewish-Roman War; or perhaps one could say the tribe is treated in a similar fashion to the oft demonized itinerant Romani people of eastern Europe. Either way, the Motes of Water are meant to represent the “Other”; ostracized outsiders to the customs of Storm who hid themselves away from the rest of the world to avoid further religious persecution.
After finding sanctuary in the northern territory of Mysidia, the Motes of Water tried to create for themselves a new Mothercrystal to replace the Northern Territories’ own shattered Mothercrystal called Drake’s Eye. The story of the Motes of Water is one of loss and a constant fight to carve out a place in the world to call their own, so it is no surprise then that they wished to regain something taken away from them so many years ago. However, the tribe would engage in a terrible act, enraging their Eikon Leviathan that laid dormant within the infant Dominant Waljas, and freeze both the baby and the Eikon in time to essentially act as an aether battery. Unsuccessful in turning Waljas into the heart of a Mothercrystal, all the tribe achieved was robbing the poor baby of its life and autonomy, imprisoning the Dominant and the tidal wave it summoned in that moment where the tribe’s greatest sin occurred for 80 years.
This frozen tsunami, dubbed the Surge, is not only a monument to the tribe’s greatest shame, but is also a constant looming threat over the tribe’s village of Haven; a reminder to never again engage in such a transgression, lest they be met with watery doom. This mirrors not only Jonah preaching to the Ninevites to change their ways, but also God’s warnings against individuals sacrificing children to Moloch in the Book of Leviticus 20:2-5. In fact, as ProfNoctis suggests in his video “Final Fantasy XVI Lecture Stream: The Mythos of Leviathan Part 2”; Leviathan and the Surge are symbols of human and divine regret, with Ultima, the creator of mankind and the Mothercrystals, referring to Leviathan as its “most profaned fragment”; due to the Eikon being rested from its creator’s control and the act of creating a man-made Mothercrystal being a repeat of the Fallen’s blasphemous attempts at attaining godhood during the War of the Magi and the Sins of Dzemekys, flagrant displays of mankind’s development of free will which is anathema to Ultima’s collective identity.
As a symbol of divine regret, the Surge could be seen as a parallel to the Flood from the Book of Genesis. Deluge or flood myths are motifs that can often be found amongst cultures residing near the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and Persian Gulf such as Egypt, Greece, and Israel; with these stories usually recounting a tale in which a deity or deities summon a world-wide flood as a form of divine retribution. One of the earliest examples is the Mesopotamian Epic of Atra-Hasis, in which mankind was created by the gods to act as servants and laborers. However, due to overpopulation, the storm god Enlil seeks to reduce their numbers by bringing forth a great flood. Enki, seen as a benefactor of mankind, warns the human Atra-Hasis about the flood, telling him to build a boat to protect himself, his family, and his livestock from the deluge. After seven days, the waters recede and Enki and Enlil agree on other means of maintaining the human population. This story is also thought to have been later adapted in Tablet XI of the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the survivor of the flood is renamed Utnapishtim; though both the Atra-Hasis and Gilgamesh flood accounts seem to originate from an even older source called the Eridu Genesis. Similarly, the Greeks also had a deluge myth, as outlined in the Roman poet Ovid’s Metamorphoses, where Deucalion, the human son of the divine Prometheus, is warned by his father to build a chest for himself and his wife Pyrrha to escape a gigantic flood that the storm god Zeus plans to bring forth as a response to the insufficient offering given to him by Lycaon), the king of Arcadia); with the pair washing up on Mount Parnassus nine days after the storm.
There are several theories, such as the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis, that propose that the ancient Middle East did indeed experience a large flood at some point in the very distant past. Given that flood myths are thus believed to have originated from Mesopotamia, it should come as no surprise that the Hebrew flood narrative bears similarities to the previously discussed deluge myths as well. According to chapters 6-9 in the Book of Genesis, God grows increasingly distraught over the wicked nature of the humans descended from Adam and Eve and their inadvertent creation of sin, and so decides to reset creation to a state of watery chaos. God warns one of the few moral men, the Antediluvian patriarch named Noah, about His plan to flood the world and instructs him to build an ark to house himself, his family, and two of each animal to be the first creatures to inhabit the new world. After the firmament breaks forth and floods the world for 40 days, Noah’s Ark washes up on Mount Ararat. Noah then builds an altar, with God forming a covenant with Noah whereby He declares to never again summon a flood to devastate the world. As Genesis 9:9-17 states, this promise between Noah and God is commemorated by the rainbow, a symbol of peace; which as ProfNoctis points out, also appears once Clive saves Waljas.
Through a certain perspective, the Flood could be seen as a sort of baptism, a spiritual cleansing of the world through physical water. Baptism is considered one of the 7 sacraments of the Christian Catholic denomination; a rite of initiation whereby the individual joining the faith is either submerged in or sprinkled with water three times, representing the purification of sin and the grace given by the Holy Trinity. This is not unlike the Rite of Immersion that the infant Waljas is granted at the conclusion of the Rising Tide DLC; a ceremony for all babies born into the Motes of Water in which the initiate is sprinkled with mountainous rain water from Maiden’s March, river water from Riversmeet, and sea water from Tailwind Bay. The water used in this rite is used as a metaphor for life’s journey, likened by the tribe to that of a river, with this revealing that the Motes of Water hold a very cyclical view of life in a similar fashion to the Buddhist beliefs in reincarnation or the Lifestream from Final Fantasy VII. As the descriptions for the 3 kinds of water used in the ceremony state; “The rain that falls upon the mountains of Mysidia emerges in the springs of Maiden’s March. Thus the water collected from said springs represents birth-the fountainhead from which the river of life begins”, “In the Riversmeet valley, several tributaries merge into a single stream, where clear currents and roiling eddies swim side by side. Its water represents life-a course complete with myriad meanderings, yet one that runs inexorably from source to sea”, and “The Mysidian river empties into the ocean amid the shallows of Tailwind Bay, and thus its water represents death-the stillness that lies beyond the end of the river of life, and from whence the raindrops are born anew”. In fact, the symbol for the village of Haven is meant to be the combination of Leviathan’s scales and the river called the Ceaseless Rill, “...the circle of life that has neither beginning nor end”, not unlike the serpentine symbol of the Ouroboros. I would thus argue that not only does Leviathan represent regret and retribution, but also the chaotic journey of life.
If it’s not already apparent, I find Leviathan to be very interesting. I want to thank you all for sticking around and reading the whole thing, as I know this was a lot. If you would like to check out some more information about Leviathan, I would recommend checking out the videos “Leviathan of Final Fantasy VS the Leviathan of the Bible - FF16 The Rising Tide” by Country Kratos and “A Brief History of Final Fantasy Summons Final Fantasy Lore” by Alleyway Jack.
With the conclusion of both DLCs, Clive and by extension the player, is granted one additional Eikonic power. As such, I am actually going to do one more essay, which I will post next week. I hope you look forward to it and thank you again for reading this. Have a fantastic day!
​

Vancouver, British Columbia – May 31, 2024 – Gold Royalty Corp. (“Gold Royalty” or the “Company”) (NYSE American: GROY) is pleased to announce the closing of its previously announced public offering (the "Offering") of units of the Company (the "Units"). Pursuant to the Offering, the Company issued, on a bought deal basis, 20,058,300 Units, including 2,616,300 Units pursuant to the full exercise of the over-allotment option, at a price of US$1.72 per Unit for aggregate gross proceeds of US$34,500,276.
The Offering was completed pursuant to an underwriting agreement dated May 28, 2024, between the Company and a syndicate of underwriters led by National Bank Financial Inc. and BMO Capital Markets Corp. as joint bookrunners, and including H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., Raymond James Ltd. and Scotia Capital Inc.
Each Unit consists of one common share of the Company (each, a “Common Share”) and one common share purchase warrant (each, a “Warrant”). Each Warrant is exercisable to acquire one Common Share of the Company for a period of thirty-six months after closing at an exercise price of US$2.25. The Common Shares issued pursuant to the Offering have been listed on the NYSE American. The Company has applied to list the Warrants on the NYSE American under the symbol "GROY.WS" following closing of the Offering. Listing will be subject to fulfilling all listing requirements of the NYSE American. As a result, the Warrants are not yet tradeable over the facilities of the NYSE American.
As announced on May 28, 2024, the Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering to fund a portion of the consideration for its proposed acquisition (the "Acquisition") of a copper stream in respect of the Vares Silver Project, operated by a subsidiary of Adriatic Metals plc and located in Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement between the Company and OMF Fund III (Cr) Ltd., an entity managed by Orion Mine Finance Management LP.
The Offering was made in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, other than Quebec and Nunavut, by way of a prospectus supplement to the Company’s Canadian short form base shelf prospectus dated July 15, 2022. The Company also filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a registration statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-265581), containing a shelf prospectus dated July 6, 2022, which was declared effective by the SEC on July 15, 2022. A prospectus supplement and accompanying shelf prospectus (forming part of the registration statement) relating to the Offering was filed with the SEC. These documents may be accessed for free on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (“SEDAR+”) at www.sedarplus.ca and on the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”) at www.sec.gov. An electronic or paper copy of the shelf prospectus, the prospectus supplement as well as any amendment to the documents may be obtained in Canada, without charge, from National Bank Financial Inc. by phone at (416) 869-6534 or by email at NBF-Syndication@bnc.ca or from BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. by phone at 905-791-3151 Ext 4312 or by email at torbramwarehouse@datagroup.ca and in the United States by contacting National Bank of Canada Financial Inc. by phone at (416) 869-6534 or by email at NBF-Syndication@bnc.ca or BMO Capital Markets Corp. by phone at 800-414-3627 or by email at bmoprospectus@bmo.com, by providing the contact with an email address or address, as applicable. The Offering was also made on a private placement basis in other international jurisdictions in reliance on applicable private placement exemptions.
This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any province, state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such province, state or jurisdiction.
Related Party Disclosure
Certain directors and officers of the Company purchased an aggregate of 796,514 Units pursuant to the Offering (the "Insider Participation"). Participation by the Insiders in the Offering was considered a "related party transaction" pursuant to Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions ("MI 61-101"). The Company was exempt from the requirements to obtain a formal valuation or minority shareholder approval in connection with the Insiders' participation in the Offering pursuant to sections 5.5(a) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101 as neither the fair market value of any securities issued to, nor the consideration paid by, the Insiders exceeded 25% of the Company's market capitalization. The Company did not file a material change report relating to the Insider Participation more than 21 days before the expected closing date of the Offering as the Company was not aware of the level of insider participation in the Offering at such time.
About Gold Royalty Corp.
Gold Royalty Corp. is a gold-focused royalty company offering creative financing solutions to the metals and mining industry. Its mission is to invest in high-quality, sustainable, and responsible mining operations to build a diversified portfolio of precious metals royalty and streaming interests that generate superior long-term returns for our shareholders. Gold Royalty's diversified portfolio currently consists primarily of net smelter return royalties on gold properties located in the Americas.
Gold Royalty Corp. Contact
Peter Behncke Director, Corporate Development & Investor Relations Telephone: (833) 396-3066 Email: info@goldroyalty.com
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the information contained in this news release constitutes "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws (collectively, "forward-looking statements"), including but not limited to statements regarding the Company’s proposed Acquisition, the intended use of net proceeds from the Offering and the listing of the Warrants on the NYSE American. Such statements can be generally identified by the use of terms such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "believe", "plans", "anticipate" or similar terms. Forward-looking statements are based upon certain assumptions and other important factors, including that the conditions to the proposed Acquisition will be satisfied in a timely manner or that the Company will receive necessary approvals to list the Warrants on the NYSE American. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements including, among others, including the possibility that the proposed Acquisition not close when expected, or at all, because conditions to closing are not satisfied on a timely basis, and other factors set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 and its other publicly filed documents under its profiles at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

Vancouver, British Columbia – May 31, 2024 – Gold Royalty Corp. (“Gold Royalty” or the “Company”) (NYSE American: GROY) is pleased to provide updated guidance for 2024 based upon the expected completion of Gold Royalty's acquisition (the "Acquisition") of a copper stream in respect of the Vares Silver Project, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and operated by a subsidiary of Adriatic Metals plc (the "Vares Stream"), as previously announced on May 28, 2024.
Upon completion of the Acquisition, the Company forecasts between approximately 6,500 and 7,000 Gold Equivalent Ounces (“GEOs”) in 2024 which equates to between approximately $13.0 million to $14.0 million in Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest at a gold price of $2,000 per ounce. This represents a midpoint increase in forecasted 2024 Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds, and Interest of approximately 27% from the prior outlook announced by the Company on March 28, 2024 and a 160% increase relative to 2023.
Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds, and Interest and GEOs are each a non-IFRS financial measure. See "Non-IFRS Measures".
The foregoing forecasts are based upon the production guidance published to date by the operators of the properties underlying the Company's existing royalties and the Vares Stream and an assumed gold price of US$2,000 per ounce and copper price of US$4.25 per pound.
The updated 2024 outlook is based on public forecasts, expected development timelines and other disclosure by the owners and operators of the properties underlying our interests and the Vares Stream and our assessment thereof. In preparing the above outlook, the Company also assumed, among other things, that the operators of the projects underlying royalties and the Vares Stream will meet expected production milestones and forecasts, and that operators of optioned properties will elect to make all expected option and similar payments, for the applicable period.
David Garofalo, Chairman and CEO of Gold Royalty, commented: “We believe that the addition of the Vares Stream is transformational for Gold Royalty’s near-term cash flow per share profile, while adding another high-quality long-life asset to our portfolio. Our updated 2024 Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest forecast includes only a partial year of production from Vares with commercial production currently expected in the fourth quarter. Looking ahead, we expect our high-quality portfolio of royalties on large-scale, long-life mines including Canadian Malartic, Côté, Ren, Borborema, Cozamin and now Vares to contribute to our peer-leading cash flow growth profile thought the end of this decade and beyond.”
Vares Copper Stream Acquisition Investor Webcast
An investor webcast will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 starting at 8:00 am ET (5:00 am PT) to discuss the recent Vares Copper Stream acquisition. Management will be providing an overview of the investment and its accretive impact on the Company’s outlook. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session where participants will be able to ask any questions they may have of management.
To register for the investor webcast, please click the link below:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinaregisteWN_JRtDn6ZsRXGIjMD42_pG0w
A replay of the event will be available on the Gold Royalty website following the presentation.
About Gold Royalty Corp.
Gold Royalty Corp. is a gold-focused royalty company offering creative financing solutions to the metals and mining industry. Its mission is to invest in high-quality, sustainable, and responsible mining operations to build a diversified portfolio of precious metals royalty and streaming interests that generate superior long-term returns for our shareholders. Gold Royalty's diversified portfolio currently consists primarily of net smelter return royalties on gold properties located in the Americas.
Gold Royalty Corp. Contact
Peter Behncke Director, Corporate Development & Investor Relations Telephone: (833) 396-3066 Email: info@goldroyalty.com
Non-IFRS Measures
We have included, in this news release, certain performance measures that do not have standardized meanings prescribed under International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"), including: (i) Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest, which is determined by determined by adding land agreement proceeds credited against mineral properties and interest received on the Company's gold-linked loan; and (ii) GEOs, which are determined by dividing revenue by the average gold price for the applicable period. Each of these are non-IFRS measures. The presentation of such non-IFRS measures is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The Company presents such measures as it believes that certain investors use this information to evaluate the Company’s performance in comparison to other royalty companies in the precious metals mining industry. Readers are advised that other companies may calculate such measures differently. The presentation of these non-IFRS measures is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. For additional information, including a numerical reconciliation of such non-IFRS measures, readers should refer to the section titled "Non-IFRS Measures" in Item 5 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, which is incorporated by reference herein and available under the Company's profile at www.sedar.com..
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the information contained in this news release constitutes "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws (collectively, "forward-looking statements"), including but not limited to statements regarding the Company's proposed completion of the Acquisition, the Company's 2024 outlook, including estimated Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest and GEOs for 2024, the expectations of the operators of the projects underlying our royalty interests and the Vares Stream, including their announced expected production timelines, milestones and schedules. Such statements can be generally identified by the use of terms such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "believe", "plans", "anticipate" or similar terms. Forward-looking statements are based upon certain assumptions and other important factors, including that the conditions to the proposed Acquisition will be satisfied in a timely manner, assumptions regarding commodities prices, and that the operators of the properties underlying the Company's existing royalty interests and the Vares Stream will meet their disclosed production estimates, milestones and development goals. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements including, among others, including the possibility that the proposed Acquisition not close when expected, or at all, because conditions to closing are not satisfied on a timely basis, any inability to any inability of the operators of the properties underlying the Company’s royalty interests to execute proposed plans for such properties or to achieved planned development and production estimates and goals, risks related to the operators of the projects in which the Company holds interests, including the successful continuation of operations at such projects by those operators, risks related to exploration, development, permitting, infrastructure, operating or technical difficulties on any such projects, the influence of macroeconomic developments, commodities price volatility and other factors set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 and its other publicly filed documents under its profiles at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

Vancouver, British Columbia – May 31, 2024 – Gold Royalty Corp. (“Gold Royalty” or the “Company”) (NYSE American: GROY) is pleased to provide updated guidance for 2024 based upon the expected completion of Gold Royalty's acquisition (the "Acquisition") of a copper stream in respect of the Vares Silver Project, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and operated by a subsidiary of Adriatic Metals plc (the "Vares Stream"), as previously announced on May 28, 2024.
Upon completion of the Acquisition, the Company forecasts between approximately 6,500 and 7,000 Gold Equivalent Ounces (“GEOs”) in 2024 which equates to between approximately $13.0 million to $14.0 million in Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest at a gold price of $2,000 per ounce. This represents a midpoint increase in forecasted 2024 Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds, and Interest of approximately 27% from the prior outlook announced by the Company on March 28, 2024 and a 160% increase relative to 2023.
Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds, and Interest and GEOs are each a non-IFRS financial measure. See "Non-IFRS Measures".
The foregoing forecasts are based upon the production guidance published to date by the operators of the properties underlying the Company's existing royalties and the Vares Stream and an assumed gold price of US$2,000 per ounce and copper price of US$4.25 per pound.
The updated 2024 outlook is based on public forecasts, expected development timelines and other disclosure by the owners and operators of the properties underlying our interests and the Vares Stream and our assessment thereof. In preparing the above outlook, the Company also assumed, among other things, that the operators of the projects underlying royalties and the Vares Stream will meet expected production milestones and forecasts, and that operators of optioned properties will elect to make all expected option and similar payments, for the applicable period.
David Garofalo, Chairman and CEO of Gold Royalty, commented: “We believe that the addition of the Vares Stream is transformational for Gold Royalty’s near-term cash flow per share profile, while adding another high-quality long-life asset to our portfolio. Our updated 2024 Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest forecast includes only a partial year of production from Vares with commercial production currently expected in the fourth quarter. Looking ahead, we expect our high-quality portfolio of royalties on large-scale, long-life mines including Canadian Malartic, Côté, Ren, Borborema, Cozamin and now Vares to contribute to our peer-leading cash flow growth profile thought the end of this decade and beyond.”
Vares Copper Stream Acquisition Investor Webcast
An investor webcast will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 starting at 8:00 am ET (5:00 am PT) to discuss the recent Vares Copper Stream acquisition. Management will be providing an overview of the investment and its accretive impact on the Company’s outlook. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session where participants will be able to ask any questions they may have of management.
To register for the investor webcast, please click the link below:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinaregisteWN_JRtDn6ZsRXGIjMD42_pG0w
A replay of the event will be available on the Gold Royalty website following the presentation.
About Gold Royalty Corp.
Gold Royalty Corp. is a gold-focused royalty company offering creative financing solutions to the metals and mining industry. Its mission is to invest in high-quality, sustainable, and responsible mining operations to build a diversified portfolio of precious metals royalty and streaming interests that generate superior long-term returns for our shareholders. Gold Royalty's diversified portfolio currently consists primarily of net smelter return royalties on gold properties located in the Americas.
Gold Royalty Corp. Contact
Peter Behncke Director, Corporate Development & Investor Relations Telephone: (833) 396-3066 Email: info@goldroyalty.com
Non-IFRS Measures
We have included, in this news release, certain performance measures that do not have standardized meanings prescribed under International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"), including: (i) Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest, which is determined by determined by adding land agreement proceeds credited against mineral properties and interest received on the Company's gold-linked loan; and (ii) GEOs, which are determined by dividing revenue by the average gold price for the applicable period. Each of these are non-IFRS measures. The presentation of such non-IFRS measures is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The Company presents such measures as it believes that certain investors use this information to evaluate the Company’s performance in comparison to other royalty companies in the precious metals mining industry. Readers are advised that other companies may calculate such measures differently. The presentation of these non-IFRS measures is intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. For additional information, including a numerical reconciliation of such non-IFRS measures, readers should refer to the section titled "Non-IFRS Measures" in Item 5 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, which is incorporated by reference herein and available under the Company's profile at www.sedar.com..
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the information contained in this news release constitutes "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws (collectively, "forward-looking statements"), including but not limited to statements regarding the Company's proposed completion of the Acquisition, the Company's 2024 outlook, including estimated Total Revenue, Land Agreement Proceeds and Interest and GEOs for 2024, the expectations of the operators of the projects underlying our royalty interests and the Vares Stream, including their announced expected production timelines, milestones and schedules. Such statements can be generally identified by the use of terms such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "believe", "plans", "anticipate" or similar terms. Forward-looking statements are based upon certain assumptions and other important factors, including that the conditions to the proposed Acquisition will be satisfied in a timely manner, assumptions regarding commodities prices, and that the operators of the properties underlying the Company's existing royalty interests and the Vares Stream will meet their disclosed production estimates, milestones and development goals. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements including, among others, including the possibility that the proposed Acquisition not close when expected, or at all, because conditions to closing are not satisfied on a timely basis, any inability to any inability of the operators of the properties underlying the Company’s royalty interests to execute proposed plans for such properties or to achieved planned development and production estimates and goals, risks related to the operators of the projects in which the Company holds interests, including the successful continuation of operations at such projects by those operators, risks related to exploration, development, permitting, infrastructure, operating or technical difficulties on any such projects, the influence of macroeconomic developments, commodities price volatility and other factors set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 and its other publicly filed documents under its profiles at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

Vancouver, British Columbia – May 31, 2024 – Gold Royalty Corp. (“Gold Royalty” or the “Company”) (NYSE American: GROY) is pleased to announce the closing of its previously announced public offering (the "Offering") of units of the Company (the "Units"). Pursuant to the Offering, the Company issued, on a bought deal basis, 20,058,300 Units, including 2,616,300 Units pursuant to the full exercise of the over-allotment option, at a price of US$1.72 per Unit for aggregate gross proceeds of US$34,500,276.
The Offering was completed pursuant to an underwriting agreement dated May 28, 2024, between the Company and a syndicate of underwriters led by National Bank Financial Inc. and BMO Capital Markets Corp. as joint bookrunners, and including H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., Raymond James Ltd. and Scotia Capital Inc.
Each Unit consists of one common share of the Company (each, a “Common Share”) and one common share purchase warrant (each, a “Warrant”). Each Warrant is exercisable to acquire one Common Share of the Company for a period of thirty-six months after closing at an exercise price of US$2.25. The Common Shares issued pursuant to the Offering have been listed on the NYSE American. The Company has applied to list the Warrants on the NYSE American under the symbol "GROY.WS" following closing of the Offering. Listing will be subject to fulfilling all listing requirements of the NYSE American. As a result, the Warrants are not yet tradeable over the facilities of the NYSE American.
As announced on May 28, 2024, the Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering to fund a portion of the consideration for its proposed acquisition (the "Acquisition") of a copper stream in respect of the Vares Silver Project, operated by a subsidiary of Adriatic Metals plc and located in Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement between the Company and OMF Fund III (Cr) Ltd., an entity managed by Orion Mine Finance Management LP.
The Offering was made in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, other than Quebec and Nunavut, by way of a prospectus supplement to the Company’s Canadian short form base shelf prospectus dated July 15, 2022. The Company also filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a registration statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-265581), containing a shelf prospectus dated July 6, 2022, which was declared effective by the SEC on July 15, 2022. A prospectus supplement and accompanying shelf prospectus (forming part of the registration statement) relating to the Offering was filed with the SEC. These documents may be accessed for free on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (“SEDAR+”) at www.sedarplus.ca and on the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”) at www.sec.gov. An electronic or paper copy of the shelf prospectus, the prospectus supplement as well as any amendment to the documents may be obtained in Canada, without charge, from National Bank Financial Inc. by phone at (416) 869-6534 or by email at NBF-Syndication@bnc.ca or from BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. by phone at 905-791-3151 Ext 4312 or by email at torbramwarehouse@datagroup.ca and in the United States by contacting National Bank of Canada Financial Inc. by phone at (416) 869-6534 or by email at NBF-Syndication@bnc.ca or BMO Capital Markets Corp. by phone at 800-414-3627 or by email at bmoprospectus@bmo.com, by providing the contact with an email address or address, as applicable. The Offering was also made on a private placement basis in other international jurisdictions in reliance on applicable private placement exemptions.
This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any province, state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such province, state or jurisdiction.
Related Party Disclosure
Certain directors and officers of the Company purchased an aggregate of 796,514 Units pursuant to the Offering (the "Insider Participation"). Participation by the Insiders in the Offering was considered a "related party transaction" pursuant to Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions ("MI 61-101"). The Company was exempt from the requirements to obtain a formal valuation or minority shareholder approval in connection with the Insiders' participation in the Offering pursuant to sections 5.5(a) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101 as neither the fair market value of any securities issued to, nor the consideration paid by, the Insiders exceeded 25% of the Company's market capitalization. The Company did not file a material change report relating to the Insider Participation more than 21 days before the expected closing date of the Offering as the Company was not aware of the level of insider participation in the Offering at such time.
About Gold Royalty Corp.
Gold Royalty Corp. is a gold-focused royalty company offering creative financing solutions to the metals and mining industry. Its mission is to invest in high-quality, sustainable, and responsible mining operations to build a diversified portfolio of precious metals royalty and streaming interests that generate superior long-term returns for our shareholders. Gold Royalty's diversified portfolio currently consists primarily of net smelter return royalties on gold properties located in the Americas.
Gold Royalty Corp. Contact
Peter Behncke Director, Corporate Development & Investor Relations Telephone: (833) 396-3066 Email: info@goldroyalty.com
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain of the information contained in this news release constitutes "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities laws (collectively, "forward-looking statements"), including but not limited to statements regarding the Company’s proposed Acquisition, the intended use of net proceeds from the Offering and the listing of the Warrants on the NYSE American. Such statements can be generally identified by the use of terms such as "may", "will", "expect", "intend", "believe", "plans", "anticipate" or similar terms. Forward-looking statements are based upon certain assumptions and other important factors, including that the conditions to the proposed Acquisition will be satisfied in a timely manner or that the Company will receive necessary approvals to list the Warrants on the NYSE American. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements including, among others, including the possibility that the proposed Acquisition not close when expected, or at all, because conditions to closing are not satisfied on a timely basis, and other factors set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 and its other publicly filed documents under its profiles at www.sedarplus.ca and www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.
Share:

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.
Let's proceed to refute the second part of his "rebuttal," providing a brief yet precise rebuttal that will further expose his ignorance in the Hebrew language, and his knowledge of the Bible as well.
He writes:

The prophecy so closely matches those events that even scecular scholars agree which is the primary reason secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events. Their idea is the book is actually recording history but pretending to present prophecy.

But it doesn’t. Not even close. The chapter is about a prophet/messenger of God who brought a Holy Covenant. His successors fell into dispute over who was the rightful heir to his kingdom. The rightful successors were supposed to be his descendants (his followers), but that turned out not to be the case according to what verse 4 states. This is strikingly similar to how Islamic history played out.
He writes:

I'm not sure where Exion found this translation.

I found it here: biblehub - Pulpit's commentary. Literally a direct copy and paste. Not sure how he missed it.
Regarding the "The prophecy describes a sequence of events" thing he pointed out, I had already revised each verse from part 1 in part 2, and it now makes perfect sense. He should read part 2.
He writes:

A few things here. The verb is עמדים. The same verb is used in verse 3 and again in verse 4. Both cases it's referring to a king rising to power rather than rising against someone/somthing else. That context suggests the same meaning for the kings in verse 2. We also see verse 2 describing a king being against a nation when it says "he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece." This is a different verb and preposition.

Yes, I agree. 'Umar was the first king to rise in Persia when he fought the Persians and won. 'Uthman and 'Ali were the second and third kings, and Mu'awiyah was the fourth, the wealthy king. I'm not sure what he thinks he is refuting here because I literally wrote:
"This 'rising' could either be in support of Persia or in opposition to it. Remarkably, this aligns perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam, and here's why:..."
In other words, both interpretations align perfectly with the historical narrative of Islam. I believe he misunderstood that part; regardless, let's move on.

The Hebrew word is גִּבּוֹר which means strong/mighty not righteous

You also missed the part where I said that this would be made clear later in the chapter, specifically here:
Daniel 11:30:

• "...and he will be crushed, and he will return and be wroth with the holy covenant, and he will succeed, and he will return and contemplate those who abandoned the holy covenant."

The Holy Covenant was brought by the mighty king, of course. However, he completely missed this point and is portraying the Bible as if it prophesies random historical secular events and secular kings, like a history book, rather than a Holy Book foretelling the era of a prophet and a king, much like King David. He claims that secular scholars date Daniel to just after these events and believe the book is recording history while pretending to present prophecy. What a silly assertion. Don’t you think people would generally reject such false "prophecy" and declare them deviant liars, especially if they depicted events that had recently happened and everyone knew about? Both you and these secular scholars need to rethink your position because it is very unlikely (almost impossible to be true) and rather ridiculous, if I'm being very frank.
The chapter is about a prophet who brought a Holy Covenant from God, which is why it is literally called "Holy."
Definition of "Holy":

holy / ˈhəʊli / adjective
1.dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred."the Holy Bible" Similar: sacred, consecrated, hallowed, sanctified, venerated, revered. (Source: Google)

The Bible is considered to be the Words of God (or inspired Words of God), and these Words literally call this Covenant "Holy." Meanwhile, you are deviating from this description by portraying an erroneous picture of a bunch of atheist ancient kings fighting each other over various kingdoms.
He writes:

The specific word is וּכְעָמְדוֹ. The וּ is the conjunctive. It's not a vav relative in this case since the verb tense isn't the perfect or imperfect The כְ is a Hebrew proposition added to the verb. The verb is עָמְד and the וֹ is a possesive suffix. The verb form is the infinitive construct. When that verb form is combined with the preposition כְ it indicates a temporal clause which is where the "as soon as" comes from. The possesive suffix indicates the subject of the verb which is where the "he" comes from. Combined with the verb we get as soon as he has risen. Exion's translation ignores the preposition and possesive suffix on the verb.

I will respond to each claim by giving it a short name and my rebuttal next to it:
Regarding: Conjunctive וּ: It is agreed that the וּ functions as a conjunctive "and" or "but," connecting phrases. This conjunction alone does not necessarily indicate a temporal clause.
Not a Vav Relative: Correct, this is not a vav relative case.
Preposition כְ: The preposition כְ does mean "like" or "as." While it can form a temporal clause in combination with an infinitive construct, this temporal interpretation must be contextually supported rather than assumed.
Verb עָמַד and Possessive Suffix וֹ: Correct, the verb עָמַד means "to stand" or "to arise," and the suffix וֹ indicates possession, translating to "his."
Infinitive Construct: Agreed, the form is an infinitive construct.
Temporal Clause Interpretation: While כְ combined with an infinitive construct can imply a temporal clause, translating it as "as soon as" is an interpretative choice. A more literal translation is "when he stood" or "as he stood," and any temporal implication would be derived from what you believe is the context.
Possessive Suffix: Agreed, the suffix וֹ indicates "he" or "his."
Your interpretation that it is saying "as soon as he has risen" adds a temporal nuance that is contextually based rather than explicitly stated in the preposition and verb form. My translation aims for a more direct rendering of "when he stood" or "as he stood," which also respects the grammatical structure without adding interpretative elements not present in the original text.
Let's move on.
He writes:

It can also refer to the 4 generals after Alexander the Great. He came after the Persian kings, conqured all of Greece, had a mighty dominion, shortly after he conqured Greece he died, and his kingdom was divided among his 4 generals none of which were his decendents.

No, it can't, because this is about a Holy Covenant. I genuinely hope you can understand this because I know you tend to repeat the same misunderstandings and rarely admit when you are wrong. However, this is explicitly clear:
The phrase is: "על־ברית־קודש"
Breakdown:

• Word: על־ (ʿal)
  
• Preposition
  
• Meaning: "upon," "on," "over," "concerning"
  
• Word: ברית־ (b'rith)
  
• Noun - feminine singular construct
  
• Meaning: "covenant," "treaty," "alliance"
  
• Word: קודש (qodesh)
  
• Noun - masculine singular
  
• Meaning: "holiness," "sanctity," "sacredness"
  

Literal Translation:

• "Upon the covenant of holiness"

Neither Alexander the Great nor anyone else you mention (or anyone related to Alexander) anything to do with a Holy Covenant. This is beyond ridiculous, and I couldn't believe your scholars were claiming this. I thought it was so absurd that it didn't even need refutation. Yet here I am, refuting you because you actually hold this view.
He writes:

That fits better than Exion's interpretation for a few reasons. First this king came after the 4 mentioned in verse 2. If those in verse 2 are the Caliphs this king can't be Mohammed who was before the Caliphs.

What makes you think that the mighty king came after the 4 kings? The 3rd verse only said:

"And a mighty king will arise and will rule a great dominion and do according to his will."

Are you claiming that this must be in chronological order just because the four kings were mentioned before the mighty king? If so, this is the first time I've heard such a claim. Please provide your proof for this supposed Biblical rule; I'd like to read it :). You won't provide any because none exist. But claiming that it does gives you something to "expose," so I understand your motive. However, in the real world, you're just making statements that aren't true.
The 4th verse says:
"...but not to his posterity, and not like the dominion that he ruled, for his kingdom will be uprooted and to others besides those."
The posterity refers to the Rashidun Caliphs, while "to others besides those" refers to Mu'awiyah and those who followed him. Do you know what "posterity" even means? Posterity literally means future followers or descendants. Lol. The mighty king is the one with the followers, which is why he is the one who brought the Holy Covenant from God, not the four other kings. Had you known what posterity means, you would never have written this in the first place, but we will look past this mistake. Now you know a new word and won't repeat this mistake again. Let's move on.
Regarding "The king of the south is prophet Muhammad" I had revisited this verse in part 2.
He writes:

This is false. The source Exion links doesn't give any English meaning. The BDB does give the English meaning. For the former it means sprout/branch, the latter means root.

Noun נֵצֶר (nétser) m (plural indefinite נְצָרִים, singular construct נֵצֶר־, plural construct נִצְרֵי־) [pattern: קֵטֶל]

1. stem, shoot
2. (literary, collectively) scion(s)

References:

• H5342 in Strong, James (1979)
• “נצר” in the Hebrew Terms Database of the Academy of Hebrew Language

The other word (i.e. שרש):

Root: שֹֽׁרֶשׁ (m.n.)

1. root.

2. source, origin.

1. bottom, lowest part.
   
2. root, stem (Heb. grammar).
   

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary
I don't know if you know this, but stem and branch are synonymous words, they essentially mean the same thing. And lowest part, bottom could also mean stem. Dictionaries define both words similarly:

Word: שֹׁרֶשׁ, שׁוֹרֶשׁ (m.) (b. h.; apocope of שרשר
, v. שָׁרָר) [chain, knot,] root. — Pl. שֳׁרָשִׁים, שֳׁרָשִׁין; constr. שָׁרְשֵׁי, שׁוֹרְשֵׁי. B. Bath. V, 4 העולה … ומן הש׳ וכ׳ that which shoots forth out of the trunk, or out of the roots, belongs to the landowner (v. גֶּזַע), expl. ib. 82ᵃ כל שאינו … זהו מן הש׳ that which does not see the light of day (when it shoots forth) is out of the roots’. Y. Ab. Zar. III, 43ᵃ top; Y. Taan. I, 64ᵇ ש׳ חטה the roots of wheat; ש׳ תאנה of fig-trees. Tosef. Shebi. VII, 17; ‘Uktsin I, 4, v. קוֹלָס. Ab. III, 17 וְשֳׁרָשָׁיו מרובין whose roots are many; a. fr.

Source: מקור: Jastrow Dictionary
Either way, let's pretend you're right (even though you're not) it still doesn't matter because a branch out of her roots did sprout, which came to be a sect called Khawarij. This was explained in part two. The ones that assassinated 'Ali were initially Shiites that later turned against 'Ali and assassinated him. It's interesting how Pulpit commentary writes:

"The version of the LXX. is very different here also, "And a plant shall arise out of his root against himself,"

He writes:

Edit: I just noticed another problem with Exion’s interpretation. They take Ali as both the commander mentioned in verse 5 who is one of commanders of the king of the south, and also as the king of the north mentioned in verse 6. That can’t be since the commander isn’t also the king of the north.

Revised in part 2 already.
He writes:

They show rather than trying to first establish the historical facts and show it lines up with the prophecy they are willing to misrepresent the historical facts to fit their interpretation of the prophecy and as their interpretation of the prophecy changes their claims about the historical facts change to match their new interpretation.

This is just your faulty conclusion and presumption. I speculated that they might have lied about 'Aishah being his wife. However, I'm not satisfied with speculations, so I revised the entire post of part 1, and it turned out to be even more accurate.
This marks the end of his part 2 post.
Thanks for reading, /Your bro, Exion

Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own. In this phenomenon, most people in a group may go along with a view they do not hold because they think, incorrectly, that most other people in the group hold it.
Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a famous fictional case of pluralistic ignorance.

Asch Conformity Experiments

The Asch conformity experiments, conducted by Solomon Asch, investigated how individuals conform to or defy a majority group's influence on beliefs and opinions. Groups of eight male college students participated in a simple "perceptual" task. In reality, all but one of the participants were actors.
Each student viewed a card with a line on it, followed by another with three lines labeled A, B, and C. One of these lines was identical in length to that on the first card, and the other two lines were clearly longer or shorter. Each participant was then asked to say aloud which line matched the length of that on the first card.
In the control group, with no pressure to conform to actors, the error rate on the critical stimuli was less than 0.7%.
In the actor condition also, the majority of participants' responses remained correct (64.3%), but a sizable minority of responses conformed to the actors' (incorrect) answer (35.7%).
The responses revealed strong individual differences: 12% of participants followed the group in nearly all of the tests. 26% of the sample consistently defied majority opinion, with the rest conforming on some trials.
Overall, 74% of participants gave at least one incorrect answer out of the 12 critical trials.
Regarding the study results, Asch stated: "That intelligent, well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern."

Distortion of: perception, judgement, action

Participants who conformed to the majority on at least 50% of trials reported reacting with what Asch called a "distortion of perception". These participants, who made up a distinct minority (only 12 subjects), expressed the belief that the actors' answers were correct, and were unaware that the majority were giving incorrect answers.
Among the other participants who yielded, most expressed what Asch termed "distortion of judgment". These participants concluded after a number of trials that they must be wrongly interpreting the stimuli and that the majority must be right, leading them to answer with the majority. These individuals were characterized by low levels of confidence.
The final group of participants who yielded on at least some trials exhibited a "distortion of action". These subjects reported that they knew what the correct answer was, but conformed with the majority group simply because they didn't want to seem out of step by not going along with the rest.
All conforming respondents underestimated the frequency with which they conformed to the majority.

Presence of a true partner

Asch found that the presence of a "true partner" (a "real" participant or another actor told to give the correct response to each question) decreased conformity. In studies that had one actor give correct responses to the questions, only 5% of the participants continued to answer with the majority.

Degree of wrongness

The authors failed to find a point at which subject conformity to the majority was completely eliminated, even when the disparity between lines was increased to 7 inches.

Groupthink

A consequence of pluralistic ignorance is groupthink. This refers to a situation where small, cohesive groups of intelligent individuals are led to make unintelligent decisions.
The concept of groupthink posits that individuals correctly perceive the preferences of others, undergo some form of motivated reasoning, which distorts their true preferences, and then willingly choose to conform; hence, they generally feel positively about the resulting group decisions.
The success of groupthink also hinges on the long-term homogeneity of the group, which seeks to keep that same cohesiveness and therefore to avoid all potential conflict. However, while groupthink, to some extent, depends on the ability of individuals to perceive attitudes and desires of others, the Abilene paradox hinges on the inability to guage true wants and intentions of group members.

The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement

Where a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of most or all individuals in the group, while each individual believes it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others.
A common phrase related to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat".
It involves a breakdown of group communication where each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's, and therefore does not raise objections, or even states support for an outcome they do not want.
Like in groupthink, group members jointly decide on a course of action that they would not choose as individuals. However, while in groupthink, individuals undergo self-deception and distortion of their own views, in the Abilene Paradox, individuals are unable to perceive the views or preferences of others.
Being prosocial and generally caring about the implications of one's actions on others has been shown to increase the likelihood that an individual finds themselves in an Abilene Paradox, especially if they are not the first to have a say.
The theory is often used to help explain poor group decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by committee". The Watergate scandal is often cited as a potential instance of the Abilene paradox in action. As well as the case of Challenger disaster, though in that case, researchers used both the concepts of groupthink and the Abilene paradox as possible explanations of the events.
The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement

The Spiral of Silence

Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their opinion when they believe it is shared throughout a group. But if the individual notices that his opinion is unpopular with the group, they will be more inclined to remain silent.
A study conducted by the Pew Research Center discovered a “spiral of silence,” where users on social media are less likely to voice their true opinions if they perceive they don’t align with the majority.
When a group stands out by way of making the most noise or causing the most chaos, this can give the impression that the group is more influential than they actually are. The spiraling process is initiated by the most visible and expressed opinions being shared loudly and publicly, while the genuine and differing opinions of the group are not expressed.
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’ Pew Research Center

Recent Study Replicates Asch Experiment

Researchers at the University of Bern decided to revisit and expand upon Asch’s seminal work. They wanted to see if Asch’s findings could be upheld in a different cultural and temporal context. They also wanted to explore adding monetary incentives and how it affected more complex decision-making by asking political questions.
The first part of the study repeated Asch's line judgment task. They added a twist: one group got no rewards (non-incentivized) and another got money for correct answers (incentivized). In the second part, participants expressed agreement or disagreement with political statements, with confederates giving predetermined responses. The final part was an online questionnaire measuring Big 5 personality traits.
The findings were similar to Asch's original results. In the non-incentivized group, the error rate in the line judgment task was 33%, similar to Asch's findings. In the incentivized group, the error rate dropped to 25%, showing that financial rewards reduce but don't eliminate group pressure.
For political opinions, group pressure significantly influenced responses, with a 38% conformity rate. Among personality traits, only openness had a significant correlation with conformity. People who scored higher in openness conformed less. Other traits like intelligence, self-esteem, and need for social approval didn't significantly impact conformity.
“We thought Asch’s findings were overstated. We also believed that providing incentives for correct answers would wipe out the conformity effect. Both did not happen. The replication turned out to be very close to the original results and providing monetary incentives did not eliminate the effect of social pressure.”
Regarding what people should take away from the findings, the researchers remarked: “Here we like to cite Mark Twain, ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'”
Scientists revisit Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments -- and are stunned by the results
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch Experiment (2023)

This is my 5th post in rebutting Exion’s (u/Informal_Patience821) claims regarding his new translations/interpretations of the Hebrew Oly Testament. For previous parts see:
Pt 1: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/aUxRazJZWs
Pt 2: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/lZQUc4t907
Pt 3: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/SQbXAqYm6E
Pt 4: https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/I8YTbc5UHZ
There isn’t a new post from him since my part 4. However, in his most recent post he linked another of his posts from a while back where he reaffirmed the info in that older post and offered it as support for part of his most recent post. That is why I’ll be addressing that older post he linked which is https://www.reddit.com/islam/s/U8bYLSxn9h.

Eng: "Who is so blind as My servant,So deaf as the messenger I send?Who is so blind as the chosen one ("Mosselam" or "Mushelam"),So blind as GOD’s servant?" (Isaiah 42:19, translation from Sefaria . com)
) Jewish scholars have added a comment (in the part that says "Moshelam") saying "chosen Meaning of Heb. uncertain." but it really isn't uncertain at all. They fully know what this word means.

There is a typo. His title for this section says Isaiah 52 but his specific citation is Isaiah 42:19. For anyone who wants to check it themselves the correct chapter is 42 not 52.
On a side note one of Exion’s response to me is saying I highlight his most minor errors and then exaggerate them. If the errors I’ve pointed out in my previous posts were like this typo that would be a viable response. A typo like this is easy to make, it’s a 1 character difference and the wrong character is right next to the right character on the keyboard. That is not at all like not realizing how Hebrew verses are numbered, copying the Hebrew verse number with the verse, not noticing the missing diacritical marks, removing the space between the verse number and first word, trying to translate the first word when it’s not a real Hebrew word, in an attempt to translate the not real word it results incorrectly spelling two Hebrew words, and then after acknowledging the mistake in your first post not fully correcting the mistake when copying the post to another subreddit. When he first blocked me that was the supposedly minor issue I kept bringing up that made him block me. That’s not a minor error, it’s a combination of several points of failure multiple of which would be hard to make, especially for someone who actually knows Hebrew. That’s nothing like the minor error in this case where he typed a 5 instead of a 4.
As for his point here the Hebrew word in question is כִּמְשֻׁלָּ֔ם. The כִּ is a preposition with מְשֻׁלָּ֔ם being the verb. The base form of the verb is שָׁלַם which means to be in a covenant of peace. This specifically is the Pual participle. Unlike the active participle I mentioned in pt 2 the Pual form is passive meaning the subject of the verb is what is being acted on by the verb. The BDB specifically lists Isaiah 42:19 as the Pual participle and cites it as meaning “one in covt. of peace”. Since it’s a passive particle the servant is the one in this covenant.
While the pronunciation sounds like the pronunciation of the word Muslim that doesn’t mean the coming prophet is being called a Muslim. Often completely different words from different languages will sound the same but it doesn’t mean they’re related. Even within the same language different words will sound the same. E.g. peace and piece sound the same but that doesn’t mean we import the meaning of piece into uses of the word peace. The word Muslim means one who submits which is a different word.

I will show you Biblical commentaries below that support this interpretation of the word.

Exion has already demonstrated he is unreliable with his citations. In pt 1 I noted his use of a fictional source, his citation of biblical verses out of context, and how in citing Haggai 2:23 he actually cited a completely different verse from a different chapter and different book. In pt 3 I noted his citation of the Septuagint didn’t match what it actually said. In pt 4 I showed how he was cherry picking translations favorable to his interpretation. There is also this discussion where 6 times in one response I had to point out how he misrepresented his sources, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/n4NuxwoXpH. Given this track record any citations he gives need to be thoroughly fact checked. Unfortunately he hasn’t given any page numbers so tracking down exactly where the quotes are to validate them is difficult. Also honestly I’m exhausted in trying thanks validate all his sources and finding problems. He needs to put more effort into showing the sources are real and accurately represented.

"I will make a covenant of peace with them, it will be an everlasting covenant*. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever."
(Ezekiel 37:26)
How people can read these verse and fully know that there's a major religion stemming from descendants of Abraham ﷺ and that this religion is called "Islam" (peace/submission), and still not pur two and two together and figure out that God has fulfilled His Divine promise, it leaves me in a state of profound astonishment.

Two problems here. First someone claiming to have a message from God and calling their new religion peace doesn’t mean it’s actually from God. It shouldn’t be surprising that non Muslims don’t take Islam as a fulfillment of this prophecy even if it was represented accurately (which I’ll show it’s not). Note I’m not arguing here Islam is false as this sub isn’t the appropriate place for such a debate. I’m just explaining why someone can read this verse and even believe it without thinking Islam is the fulfillment.
The second issue is when examined in context it’s clearly not about Islam. The whole section is from Ezekiel 37:15-28. It talks about the northern and southern nations that were split being brought back into one nation, all the Jews scattered across the nations brought back into Israel, being ruled by King David again, and ends by specifically saying God will sanctify Israel. The convent is clearly being made with Israel in the context of the prophecy. Even if you believe Mohammed brought a covenant of peace from God that’s clearly not what this prophecy is speaking about.

All ancient maps (and credible history books) show us and tell us that Haran was a city located in Arabia, precisely where Mecca is located today.

This needs some support. From what I can find it’s in modern day Turkey which is north of Israel while Arabia is south of Israel. The link he pasted doesn’t work for me. Though even if it did it’s a Reddit link not an academic source so it wouldn’t be a reliable source of info.

The final "Mem" at the end is there as a grammatically called "plural of majesty" or respect, much like the words "Elohim", " Malachim", "Adonim".

I already addressed the part of כִּמְשֻׁלָּ֔ם in Isaiah 42:19. As for Songs of Solomon 5:16 it’s important to understand exactly what Exion is claiming here so I’ll use English plural to make sure it’s clear. Take the name Mohammed. Suppose there were two people with the name being referred to. We’d add an s to make it plural when referring to both, e.g. both Mohammeds are coming to the party. The em ending in Hebrew indicates plural like the English s. Exion is claiming that adding the s in some cases isn’t done to indicate a plurality but rather to majesty. He gives 3 examples but only 1 is actually a name. In that one instance the em at the end isn’t the plural ending added to a name, rather it’s part of the name. It’s like the name Jesus. It’s not that the name is Jesu and the s is added to make it plural, rather the s is just part of the name. None of these parallel Exion’s claim of taking a name and adding a plural suffix to indicate majesty.

the word before “Muhammadim” is "vekullo", it consists of the conjunction "Vav" (and) and the word "kullo," where "khulo" is a masculine singular construct.

I’ve already pointed out to Exion that he confused the construct form with pronoun suffixes in this comment, https://www.reddit.com/Quraniyoon/s/7v8uaBIljg. Also as noted in pt 1 a bunch of people, including my, explained how pronoun suffixes work. I did call it possessive suffixes in that comment and pronoun suffixes in this comment. The reason is possessive suffixes are a type of pronoun suffix, specifically when the pronoun suffix is added to a noun. However, the suffix can be added to other things as well, not just nouns, and even for some nouns it’s a special case. This is one of those cases. Here is a screenshot from my Hebrew textbook explaining it, https://imgur.com/a/k4TKPRN. With a pronoun suffix the word means “all of {pronoun}” where the specific pronoun is indicated by the specific suffix added.
Note in Songs of Solomon 5:16 the noun is after the word col. The textbook says it often appears before the noun being referred too but it doesn’t say always so it’s not a problem for this verse where it’s after. We know this case the noun is the one after since col in this case is prefixed by the vav conjunction indicating a new part of the sentence. The book also gives examples where the col is first. It’s when adding emphasis that the other noun is placed first.
The masculine singular Exion mentions (really the third person masculine singular, he left out the third person part) is referring to the pronoun suffix not the noun. It’s indicating the pronoun is singular not the noun. I.E. it’s saying all of him rather than all of them. While there is a construct form between the two nouns the pronoun suffix is not the suffix for the construct form. As my textbook notes it’s the case where the pronoun suffix is being added to the construct form but the construct form with col doesn’t require the suffix. Furthermore nothing in the section in my picture indicates the plurality of the suffix needs to match the plurality of the following noun. Exion needs to provide some source for this.

"So I sent Eliezer, and Ariel, and Semeias, and Elnathan, and Jarib, and another Elnathan, and Nathan, and Zacharias, and Mosollam, chief men*: and Joiarib, and Elnathan, wise me."
( Ezra 8:16, Douay-Rheims Bible)

So often Exion takes ordinary Hebrew words and twists them to try and make them into a name. It’s funny that when we finally have a name he twists it to make it a noun. The verse is giving a list of names with names before and after the word in question. That tells us in that case it should be taken as a name within a list of names but Exion twists it to be a noun without justification. What’s also funny is one of the commentaries he cites to support his interpretation for Isaiah 42:19 specifically lists Ezra 8:16 as a case where the word is used as a proper name. Why should we trust his source for Isaiah 42:19 but not Ezra 8:16? No reason is given, rather Exion just picks and chooses what he wants to support his argument and ignores what doesn’t.

PUBG MOBILE
PUBG MOBILE Erangel Mecha Runway Competition
CONTEST OFFICIAL RULES
NO ENTRY FEE. NO PURCHASE OR OBLIGATION IS NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. A PURCHASE WILL NOT IMPROVE THE CHANCES OF WINNING. ODDS OF WINNING WILL DEPEND ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ENTRIES RECEIVED WORLDWIDE. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED OR WHERE REGISTRATION, BONDING OR LOCALIZATION REQUIRED. SUBJECT TO ALL NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL LAWS.
This PUBG MOBILE Erangel Mecha Runway Competition (the “Contest”) is in connection with the video game PUBG MOBILE (the “Game”), and is governed by these official rules (“Official Rules”), the Game’s EULA available at https://www.pubgmobile.com/terms.html (“EULA”), the Game’s privacy policy available at https://pubgmobile.proximabeta.com/privacy/en.html (“Privacy Policy”), and any additional rules on the applicable Contest webpage. By submitting an entry to the Contest, you are accepting the terms and conditions of participation on the applicable Contest webpage, the Official Rules, the EULA, and the Privacy Policy.
The sponsor of this Contest is ZAM Network, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with an office at 12777 W. Jefferson Blvd – Building E, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (“ZAM” or “Sponsor”).

1. Promotion Period

The Contest begins on May 31st 2024 at 6am PDT and runs through June 16th 2024 at 6am PDT (the “Promotion Period”).

1. Eligibility

In order to be eligible, participants must be at least (whichever is higher): (i) 18 years old, or (ii) the age of majority in their state or country of their legal residence as of the date of entry, who have an active email account and Internet access. This Contest it not open to legal residents of Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Dubai, Egypt, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Quebec of Canada, Singapore, South Australia and QLD, South Korea, Turkey. Any additional eligibility requirements will be indicated in the additional terms found on the applicable Contest webpage. Persons identified as “Blocked Persons” or persons subject to applicable sanctions prohibitions, including, without limitation, those persons listed on the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List are not eligible to participate in the Contest. Employees of ZAM, Proxima Beta Pte. Ltd., Krafton, and their respective parent company, affiliates, subsidiaries, advertising, promotion, fulfillment or other coordinating agencies, individuals providing services to them through an outsourcer or temporary employment agency during the Promotion Period, and their respective immediate family members and persons living in the same household, are not eligible to participate in the Contest.

1. Entry Instructions

To participate in the Contest and be eligible for a potential prize, participants must complete one of the entry methods indicated on the applicable Contest webpage during the Promotion Period. One entry per individual, household and/or email address is permitted, regardless of method of entry, unless expressly set forth to the contrary in the additional terms found on the applicable Contest webpage. Multiple participants are not permitted to share the same email or other account needed for participation. Any attempt by any participant to obtain more than the stated number of entries by using multiple/different email or addresses, accounts, identities, registrations and logins, or any other methods will void that participant’s entries and that participant may be disqualified. Use of any automated, programmed or robotic system or the like entry methods to participate is prohibited and will result in disqualification. Each potential winner may be required to show proof of being the authorized account holder. All entries become property of ZAM and none will be acknowledged or returned.
Social Media Entry: Collect your best PUBG MOBILE content; then upload your content to social media with the following hashtag: #PUBGMOBILE #PUBGMOBILEMECH #PUBGMOBILEC6S18 #MechaRunway#contest

• Entries must be original and not violate any third-party rights, and the entrant must have all rights necessary to submit the entry.
• Entries may not contain material that (a) is obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or violate any law; (b) infringes, misappropriates or violates a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, contractual rights, moral rights or other intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or any other rights of third parties; (c) violates, or encourages any conduct that would violate any applicable law or regulation or would give rise to civil liability; (d) is fraudulent, false, misleading or deceptive; (e) is grossly harmful, racially or ethnically objectionable, disparaging, blasphemous, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, pedophilic, vulgar or offensive; (f) promotes discrimination, bigotry, racism, hatred, harassment or harm against any individual or group; (g) is violent, bullying, or threatening or promotes violence, money laundering or gambling, terrorism, or actions that are threatening or disrespectful to any person or entity; (h) harms minors in any way; or (i) promotes illegal or harmful activities or substances.
• Entries must follow the community guidelines and terms of service of the social media platform used for entry (where applicable).
• Participants may enter any number of times, but are only eligible to win once per week during the Contest Period.
• Sponsor may reject any entries that are found, as determined by ZAM in its sole discretion, to be in violation of these Official Rules.

1. Drawing; Notification of Winners

All Contest entries meeting the requirements of these Official Rules will be entered into the Contest. A panel of judges appointed by Sponsor (“Judges'') will review the entries based on the judging criteria specified below and confirm/select the number of Contest winners as indicated on the Contest Page. The Judge's determination of the Contest winners is final and binding, subject to the below.
Judging Criteria:
Creativity: Creativity of the designs.
Originality: The uniqueness of the entry.
Popularity: The amount of social media interaction (e.g., likes and reposts) a post gets.

1. Prize

Each winner will receive the prize below. No cash or other substitution, assignment or transfer of the prize is permitted, except at the sole option of ZAM, who has the right to substitute a prize with another of comparable or greater value. Winner is responsible for all income or other taxes and fees associated with the receipt and/or use of the prize. The odds of winning a prize depend on the total number of eligible entries received. ZAM will not replace any lost or stolen prizes. ZAM will use all reasonable efforts to deliver prizes in a timely fashion.
Prizes:
1st Place

• Criteria: Quality of Work
• Prizes: $300 in UC

2nd Place

• Criteria: Quality of Work
• Prizes: $200 in UC x 2

3rd Place

• Criteria: Quality of Work
• Prizes: $150 in UC x 3

Popularity Award

• Criteria: Likes & Comments (Only comments made by other users are valid)
• Prizes: $100 in UC

Excellence Award (40)

• Criteria: Quality of Work
• Prizes: $30 in UC x 40

1. Intellectual Property
2. Ownership of the pre-existing underlying intellectual property of the entrant remains the property of the entrant subject to Sponsor’s rights to reprint, display, reproduce, perform, use, and exhibit the entry for the purpose of administering and promoting the Contest and for Sponsor’s marketing and advertising purposes. By participating in the Contest, each entrant grants to Sponsor a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable license, with the right to sublicense, to reprint, display, reproduce, perform, use, and exhibit (including the right to make derivative works of) the entry and materials and information submitted on and in connection with the Contest or use or receipt of the prize for any and all purposes in any medium. If an entrant is selected as a winner, instead of the license granted above, each entrant grants to Sponsor an exclusive, worldwide, fully paid, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable license, with the right to sublicense, to reprint, display, reproduce, perform, use, and exhibit (including the right to make derivative works of) the entry and materials and information submitted on and in connection with the Contest or use or receipt of the prize for any and all purposes in any medium. Each participating entrant hereby warrants that any entry and other materials and information provided by entrant are original with entrant and do not violate or infringe upon the copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy, publicity, moral rights or other intellectual property or other rights of any person or entity, and do not violate any applicable laws, rules or regulations. If the entry or information or materials provided by entrant contain any material or elements that are not owned by entrant and/or which are subject to the rights of third parties, entrant represents he or she has obtained, prior to submission of the entry and information or materials, any and all releases and consents necessary to permit use and exploitation of the entry, relevant information and materials by Sponsor in the manner set forth in these Official Rules without additional compensation.

Each entrant warrants that the entry and materials and information provided do not contain information considered by entrant, its employees or personnel, or any other third party to be confidential, and that the entry, materials and information provided do not violate any laws or regulations. Entrant agrees that Sponsor has the right to verify the ownership and originality of all entries and that, upon Sponsor’s request, entrant must submit a written copy of any release or permission entrant has received from a third-party granting entrant the right to use such property. Entrant understands and acknowledges that in the event a submission is selected as a winning entry, and entrant’s ownership, rights and the originality of the entry cannot be verified to the satisfaction of Sponsor or is in any other way ineligible, Sponsor may select an alternate winner based on the same judging criteria.

1. Except to the extent prohibited by law, entrants waive the benefit of any “moral rights” or “droit moral” or similar rights in any country to any content that they upload, submit or otherwise provide to Sponsor associated with the Contest (“Entrant Content”). In addition, when an entrant creates, appears in, uploads, or posts Entrant Content, that entrant grants Sponsor a non-exclusive, transferable, worldwide, royalty-free, unrestricted, perpetual, irrevocable, license, with the right to sublicense, to such entrant’s name, likeness, and voice, including in connection with commercial or sponsored content. This means, among other things, that such entrant will not be entitled to any compensation from Sponsor, its affiliates, or its business partners if such entrant’s name, likeness, or voice is conveyed through the game or any related services, or on one of Sponsor’s business partner’s platforms.
2. Disputes

In the event of a dispute as to any participant, the authorized account holder of the email address associated with the entry will be deemed to be the participant. The “authorized account holder” is the natural person assigned an email address by an Internet access provider, online service provider or other organization responsible for assigning email addresses for the domain associated with the submitted address. Each potential winner may be required to show proof of being the authorized account holder. ZAM will make final determination of identity of participants and timing of entries in its sole discretion.

1. Additional Conditions

ZAM reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate, modify or suspend the Contest in whole or in part, if in ZAM’s opinion (a) the Contest is not capable of running as planned by reason of the occurrence of any event beyond its control including, but not limited to, fire, flood, epidemic, pandemic, earthquake, explosion, labor dispute or strike, act of God or public enemy, communications, equipment failure, utility or service interruptions, riot or civil disturbance, terrorist threat or activity, war (declared or undeclared), interference with the Contest by any party, or any federal, state, local or provincial government law, order, or regulation, order of any court or jurisdiction, or other cause not reasonably within ZAM’s control, or (b) any other factors beyond ZAM’s reasonable control corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness, integrity, or proper conduct of the Contest, in all instances without liability to the participants. ZAM also reserves the right to disqualify any participant or winner, as determined by ZAM, in its sole discretion.

1. List of Winner(s)

Individuals may request the name of the winners by emailing Sponsor at [entries@zam.com](mailto:entries@zam.com) with the subject line: “PUBG MOBILE Erangel Mecha Runway Competition Winners List”, within 90 days from the end of the Contest.

1. Personal Information

ZAM may collect personal data about participants online, in accordance with its privacy policy and as may be more specifically set forth in these Official Rules and the Privacy Policy.

1. Disclaimers and Limitations on Liability. ZAM MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING ANY PRIZE OR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEST. BY ENTERING THE CONTEST OR RECEIPT OF ANY PRIZE, EACH ENTRANT AGREES TO RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CONTEST ENTITIES, ANY THIRD-PARTY SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS UTILIZED FOR THE CONTEST, AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, DISTRIBUTORS, ADVERTISING/CONTEST AGENCIES, AND PRIZE SUPPLIERS, AND EACH OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PARENT COMPANIES AND EACH SUCH COMPANY’S OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS (COLLECTIVELY, THE “RELEASED PARTIES”) FROM AND AGAINST ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH, OR DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEST OR RECEIPT OR USE OR MISUSE OF ANY PRIZE. THE RELEASED PARTIES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR: (1) ANY INCORRECT OR INACCURATE INFORMATION, WHETHER CAUSED BY ENTRANTS, PRINTING ERRORS OR BY ANY OF THE EQUIPMENT OR PROGRAMMING ASSOCIATED WITH OR UTILIZED IN THE CONTEST; (2) TECHNICAL FAILURES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MALFUNCTIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, OR DISCONNECTIONS IN PHONE LINES OR NETWORK HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE; (3) UNAUTHORIZED HUMAN INTERVENTION IN ANY PART OF THE ENTRY PROCESS OR THE CONTEST; (4) TECHNICAL OR HUMAN ERROR WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONTEST OR THE PROCESSING OF ENTRIES; OR (5) ANY INJURY OR DAMAGE TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE CAUSED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FROM ENTRANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEST OR RECEIPT OR USE OR MISUSE OF ANY PRIZE. If for any reason an entrant's entry is confirmed to have been erroneously deleted, lost, or otherwise destroyed or corrupted, entrant’s sole remedy is another entry in the Contest, provided that if it is not possible to award another entry due to discontinuance of the Contest, or any part of it, for any reason, Sponsor, at its discretion, may elect to hold a random drawing from among all eligible entries received up to the date of discontinuance for any or all of the prizes offered herein. No more than the stated number of prizes will be awarded. In event that production, technical, programming or any other reasons cause more than stated number of prizes as set forth in these Official Rules to be available and/or claimed, Sponsor reserves the right to award only the stated number of prizes by a choosing from all legitimate, unawarded, eligible prize claims. In the event Sponsor is prevented from continuing with the Contest as contemplated herein by any event beyond its control, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthquake, explosion, labor dispute or strike, act of God or public enemy, or any federal, state or local government law, order, or regulation, or other cause not reasonably within Sponsor’s control (each a "Force Majeure" event or occurrence), then subject to any governmental approval which may be required, Sponsor shall have the right to modify, suspend, or terminate the Contest. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of these rules shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.
2. Indemnification

You agree to release, indemnify, defend and hold ZAM and its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, sponsors and agents, including advertising and promotion agencies, and assigns, and any other organizations related to the Contest, harmless, from any and all claims, injuries, damages, expenses or losses to person or property and/or liabilities of any nature that in any way arise from participation in the Contest or acceptance or use of a prize or parts thereof, including, without limitation, (a) any condition caused by events beyond ZAM’s control that may cause the Contest to be disrupted or corrupted; (b) the prize, or acceptance, possession, or use of the prize, or from participation in the Contest; and (c) any printing or typographical errors in any materials associated with the Contest.

1. Publicity

Except where prohibited, by participating in the Contest, you consent to the use of your name, photograph, likeness, voice, opinions, information, biographical information, entry and statements attributed to you (if true), hometown and jurisdiction of residence for advertising, publicity and promotional purposes, including without limitation, inclusion in ZAM’s newsletters, social media accounts and affiliated websites and the applicable Contest webpage, without further compensation.

1. Governing Law

These Official Rules, and any action related thereto, will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, federal arbitration law and the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of laws provisions. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section 15 “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration” the exclusive jurisdiction for all Disputes (defined below) that you and ZAM are not required to arbitrate will be the state and federal courts located in Los Angeles County, California and you and ZAM each waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue in such courts.

1. Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
2. Mandatory Arbitration of Disputes. We each agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Official Rules or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof or participation in the Contest (collectively, “Disputes”) will be resolved solely by binding, individual arbitration and not in a class, representative or consolidated action or proceeding. You and ZAM agree that the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of these Official Rules, and that you and ZAM are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action. This arbitration provision shall survive termination of these Official Rules.
3. Exceptions. As limited exceptions to Section 15(a) above: (i) we both may seek to resolve a Dispute in small claims court if it qualifies; and (ii) we each retain the right to seek injunctive or other equitable relief from a court to prevent (or enjoin) the infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights.
4. Conducting Arbitration and Arbitration Rules. The arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under its Consumer Arbitration Rules (the “AAA Rules”) then in effect, except as modified by these Official Rules. The AAA Rules are available at www.adr.org or by calling 1-800-778-7879. A party who wishes to start arbitration must submit a written Demand for Arbitration to AAA and give notice to the other party as specified in the AAA Rules. The AAA provides a form Demand for Arbitration at www.adr.org. Any arbitration hearings will take place in the county (or parish) where you live, unless we both agree to a different location. The parties agree that the arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to decide all issues relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability and scope of this arbitration agreement.
5. Arbitration Costs. Payment of all filing, administration and arbitrator fees will be governed by the AAA Rules, and we won’t seek to recover the administration and arbitrator fees we are responsible for paying, unless the arbitrator finds your Dispute frivolous. If we prevail in arbitration we’ll pay all of our attorneys’ fees and costs and won’t seek to recover them from you. If you prevail in arbitration you will be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the extent provided under applicable law.
6. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Except as provided in 13(b) above, the arbitrator shall determine all issues of liability on the merits of any claim asserted by either party and may award declaratory or injunctive relief only in favor of the individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim. To the extent that you or we prevail on a claim and seek public injunctive relief (that is, injunctive relief that has the primary purpose and effect of prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the public), the entitlement to and extent of such relief must be litigated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction and not in arbitration. The parties agree that litigation of any issues of public injunctive relief shall be stayed pending the outcome of the merits of any individual claims in arbitration.
7. Class Action Waiver. YOU AND ZAM AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING. Further, if the parties’ Dispute is resolved through arbitration, the arbitrator may not consolidate another person’s claims with your claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding. If this specific provision is found to be unenforceable, then the entirety of this Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section shall be null and void.
8. Severability. With the exception of any of the provisions in Section 15(f) (“Class Action Waiver”), if an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction decides that any part of these Official Rules is invalid or unenforceable, the other parts of these Official Rules will still apply.
9. Languages. These Official Rules may be made in multiple language versions. In the event of a dispute as to the terms of different language versions, the English version shall prevail.
10. Country Specific Notices.
11. If any provision of these Official Rules is invalid under the law, rules, or regulations of a particular country, it will only apply to the extent permitted.
12. No Affiliation with Social Media Channels.
13. This Contest is in no way sponsored, endorsed, or administered by, or associated with, any of the social media channels used in connection with this Contest. Entrants understand that entrants are providing information to Sponsor and not to the social media channels. The information provided by entrants will only be used as described in these Official Rules and the Game’s Privacy Policy.

For any feedback or questions regarding these Official Rules, the Contest, winners, or prizes, you can contact Sponsor by sending an email to: [entries@zam.com](mailto:entries@zam.com)

Star seeds are individuals who hold the belief that their souls originated from other planets or celestial bodies. This concept suggests a spiritual or cosmic connection beyond Earth. Common characteristics associated with star seeds include heightened intuition, a strong sense of purpose, and a deep connection to nature.

1. Heightened Intuition:
   
   • Star seeds often report an elevated sense of intuition, a heightened awareness that goes beyond conventional understanding.
   • Intuitive insights may include a profound understanding of people, events, or a keen perception of energy fields.
2. Strong Sense of Purpose:
   
   • Individuals identifying as star seeds frequently express a strong sense of purpose or mission on Earth.
   • This purpose often revolves around contributing to positive change, spiritual awakening, or assisting in the evolution of human consciousness.
3. Deep Connection to Nature:
   
   • Many star seeds feel a profound connection to nature, describing an intuitive understanding and appreciation for the Earth's elements.
   • Nature serves as a source of solace, inspiration, and a medium through which they feel more attuned to their cosmic origins.
4. Unconventional Beliefs:
   
   • Star seeds may embrace unconventional spiritual or metaphysical beliefs that set them apart from mainstream perspectives.
   • These beliefs often encompass topics such as reincarnation, extraterrestrial existence, and a broader cosmic consciousness.
5. Empathy and Sensitivity:
   
   • Empathy and heightened sensitivity to energies are common traits among star seeds.
   • They may feel deeply connected to the emotions and energies of others, often experiencing a strong desire to alleviate suffering and promote healing.
6. Drawn to Cosmic and Metaphysical Topics:
   
   • Star seeds are naturally drawn to cosmic and metaphysical subjects, showing a keen interest in topics like astrology, ancient civilizations, and the study of extraterrestrial life.
7. Dream and Astral Experiences:
   
   • Many star seeds report vivid dreams, astral projections, or experiences that transcend the boundaries of ordinary consciousness.
   • These experiences often play a significant role in shaping their understanding of their cosmic origins.

In essence, star seeds embody a unique blend of spiritual, intuitive, and empathic qualities that guide them on a journey of self-discovery and a deeper connection to the cosmos. Their beliefs and characteristics contribute to a rich tapestry of perspectives within the broader spiritual and metaphysical communities.
Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow Children: Exploring Star Seed Classifications

1. Indigo Children:
   
   • Attributes:
     • Characterized by strong-willed, independent, and intuitive traits.
     • Often possess a deep sense of empathy and a desire to challenge societal norms.
   • Personal Stories:
     • Indigo children may share experiences of feeling different from a young age, often perceiving the world with a heightened sense of awareness.
     • Testimonials may highlight their inclination towards creative or alternative pursuits and a strong sense of purpose in effecting positive change.
2. Crystal Children:
   
   • Attributes:
     • Known for their gentle and empathic nature.
     • Possess a deep connection to spirituality, often displaying wisdom beyond their years.
   • Personal Stories:
     • Crystal children may recount early memories of spiritual experiences or an innate understanding of metaphysical concepts.
     • Testimonials might emphasize their ability to foster peace and harmony, acting as natural healers within their communities.
3. Rainbow Children:
   
   • Attributes:
     • Considered the next evolutionary step, embodying a higher level of consciousness.
     • Display a vibrant and diverse range of talents and abilities.
   • Personal Stories:
     • Rainbow children may share experiences of feeling a strong connection to cosmic energies or a sense of unity with all living beings.
     • Testimonials often highlight their creative expression, advanced problem-solving skills, and a deep commitment to promoting harmony.

Personal Stories and Testimonials:

1. Indigo Child Experience:
   
   • Jane, an indigo child, recalls feeling a deep sense of purpose from childhood. She shares how her intuitive abilities led her to unconventional paths, eventually becoming an advocate for environmental causes and social justice.
2. Crystal Child Perspective:
   
   • Mark, a crystal child, reflects on his early fascination with spirituality and energy. His testimony emphasizes a profound connection to nature and how this connection has guided him in developing holistic healing practices.
3. Rainbow Child Journey:
   
   • Sarah, a rainbow child, narrates her experiences of vivid dreams and a sense of interconnectedness with the universe. Her story revolves around using her artistic talents to spread messages of love and unity, contributing to the evolving consciousness of humanity.

These personal stories provide glimpses into the diverse experiences of individuals identifying as star seeds. While each classification carries unique attributes, the overarching theme is a shared commitment to personal growth, spiritual development, and contributing positively to the world around them. The classifications serve as frameworks for understanding the multifaceted nature of star seeds and their roles in the ongoing evolution of human consciousness.
Understanding Lucid Dreaming: A State of Conscious Dream Control
Lucid dreaming refers to a state in which individuals are fully aware that they are dreaming, allowing them to actively participate in and manipulate the dream environment. This unique phenomenon provides a playground for the conscious mind within the realm of dreams.

1. Awareness Within the Dream:
   
   • Lucid dreamers maintain consciousness while navigating the dream landscape, realizing that the events unfolding are products of their own imagination.
   • This heightened awareness distinguishes lucid dreams from typical dreaming experiences.
2. Active Participation:
   
   • Lucid dreamers can actively engage with the dream narrative, interact with dream characters, and make intentional decisions.
   • The dreamer becomes both the protagonist and director of their dream storyline.
3. Manipulating the Dream Environment:
   
   • Lucid dreamers possess the ability to influence the dream environment, changing elements such as scenery, weather, or even their own appearance.
   • This manipulation occurs in real-time, reflecting the dreamer's conscious desires.

Anecdotes and Studies on Vividness and Control:

1. Vividness of Lucid Dreams:
   
   • Sarah, a frequent lucid dreamer, describes the vividness of her dreams with remarkable detail. She recounts experiences of feeling textures, tasting flavors, and experiencing emotions with a heightened intensity beyond waking life.
2. Control Over Dream Elements:
   
   • Mark, an avid lucid dreamer, shares an anecdote of flying over surreal landscapes during a lucid dream. He describes the sensation of controlling his flight path effortlessly, reveling in the freedom and exhilaration of the experience.
3. Scientific Studies on Lucid Dreaming:
   
   • Studies using neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have explored the brain activity associated with lucid dreaming.
   • Research suggests that during lucid dreaming, regions of the brain associated with self-awareness and decision-making are highly activated, supporting the idea of conscious control within dreams.
4. Application of Lucid Dreaming Techniques:
   
   • Lucid dreaming techniques, such as reality checks and dream journaling, have been studied for their effectiveness in inducing and enhancing lucid dreams.
   • Anecdotal evidence from individuals practicing these techniques highlights improved dream recall, increased frequency of lucid dreams, and enhanced control over dream content.

In essence, lucid dreaming offers a fascinating intersection of consciousness and imagination. Anecdotes and scientific studies alike emphasize the vividness and control experienced by lucid dreamers, showcasing the extraordinary potential of the human mind to shape and explore alternate realities within the realm of dreams.
Individuals who identify as both star seeds and active lucid dreamers often describe profound and unique experiences that blend elements of their cosmic beliefs with the imaginative realm of lucid dreaming. Shared experiences include encounters with extraterrestrial beings and visits to distant celestial realms, providing a fascinating intersection of their spiritual identity and dream exploration.

1. Encounters with Extraterrestrial Beings:
   
   • Lucid dreamers who identify as star seeds commonly report vivid encounters with extraterrestrial beings during their dreams.
   • Descriptions often involve communication through telepathy, sharing of wisdom, and a sense of connection to these otherworldly entities.
   Testimonial: - Sarah, a star seed and lucid dreamer, recounts a dream where she found herself on a spacecraft. In this lucid dream, she interacted with beings of light who communicated profound insights about the interconnectedness of all life in the universe. The experience left her with a deep sense of purpose and a stronger belief in her extraterrestrial origins.
   
2. Visiting Distant Celestial Realms:
   
   • Star seeds who practice lucid dreaming frequently describe journeys to celestial realms that go beyond the confines of Earth.
   • These dreams often involve exploring breathtaking landscapes, encountering cosmic energies, and feeling a profound connection to the vastness of the universe.
   Testimonial: - Mark, a star seed and experienced lucid dreamer, shares a dream where he found himself on a distant planet bathed in ethereal light. In this lucid dream, he felt a sense of unity with the cosmos and received guidance on his earthly mission. The dream reinforced his belief in a cosmic connection that transcends physical boundaries.
   
3. Integration of Spiritual Beliefs:
   
   • Star seeds who actively engage in lucid dreaming often integrate their spiritual beliefs into the dream narrative, creating a seamless blend of cosmic consciousness and dream exploration.
   • This integration may involve seeking guidance from higher beings, receiving downloads of cosmic knowledge, or participating in collective consciousness experiences.
   Testimonial: - Emma, a dedicated lucid dreamer and star seed, describes dreams where she engages in telepathic communication with a collective of beings who guide her in understanding the interconnected web of consciousness. These experiences, she believes, serve as a bridge between her earthly existence and cosmic origins.
   

In summary, the shared experiences of individuals identifying as both star seeds and active lucid dreamers offer a glimpse into a fascinating realm where spirituality, cosmic beliefs, and dream exploration converge. These narratives provide a rich tapestry of personal encounters, reinforcing the intricate relationship between one's cosmic identity and the boundless possibilities within the lucid dream landscape.
Synergy of Star Seed Beliefs and Lucid Dreaming: A Path to Spiritual Growth and Self-Discovery

1. Enhanced Spiritual Awareness:
   
   • The combination of star seed beliefs and lucid dreaming practices often leads to heightened spiritual awareness.
   • Lucid dreamers with star seed inclinations report a deepened understanding of their cosmic origins, contributing to a broader perspective on spirituality.
   Insight: - Mark, a practitioner of both star seed beliefs and lucid dreaming, expresses that his dreams serve as a bridge to a higher state of consciousness. The lucid dream environment allows him to explore and integrate the spiritual insights gained through his star seed beliefs, fostering a continuous journey of self-discovery.
   
2. Accessing Cosmic Guidance:
   
   • Star seeds who engage in lucid dreaming often describe encounters with cosmic guides or extraterrestrial beings, providing guidance and wisdom.
   • Lucid dreams become a space for seeking answers to existential questions and receiving personalized insights.
   Insight: - Emma, a believer in her star seed origins, shares that her lucid dreams feel like direct conversations with cosmic mentors. These dream interactions offer guidance on her life path, helping her align with her higher purpose and contributing to her spiritual growth.
   
3. Integration of Cosmic Energies:
   
   • Lucid dreaming practices can serve as a means of integrating cosmic energies and experiences into one's daily life.
   • Star seeds often find that the lucid dream state allows for a more profound connection to the universal energies that shape their beliefs.
   Insight: - Sarah, who identifies strongly as a star seed, emphasizes that her lucid dreams act as a conduit for cosmic energies. Through intentional practices within lucid dreams, such as energy work and visualization, she feels a direct alignment with the celestial forces that influence her spiritual journey.
   
4. Revelations about Extraterrestrial Origins:
   
   • Lucid dreamers who embrace star seed beliefs may encounter scenarios in dreams that reinforce their connection to extraterrestrial origins.
   • These dreams serve as powerful affirmations, providing a visceral and personal experience of their cosmic identity.
   Insight: - James, a star seed enthusiast and lucid dreamer, shares a dream where he witnessed a vivid recollection of his arrival on Earth from another planetary system. This dream not only affirmed his star seed beliefs but also fueled a sense of purpose and responsibility tied to his cosmic origins.
   

In conclusion, the combination of star seed beliefs and lucid dreaming practices forms a symbiotic relationship, fostering spiritual growth and self-discovery. The lucid dream space becomes a canvas for exploring, integrating, and affirming one's cosmic identity, leading to a profound and transformative journey of self-awareness within the context of a broader cosmic consciousness.
If you're interested in learning more about star seeds, lucid dreaming, or the intersection of spirituality and dream experiences, consider looking into academic journals, reputable websites, and books on the following subjects:
Star Seeds: 1. "The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived" by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. 2. "The Crystal Children: A Guide to the Newest Generation of Psychic and Sensitive Children" by Doreen Virtue. 3. Explore online communities and forums dedicated to star seeds for personal testimonials and shared experiences.
Lucid Dreaming: 1. "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming" by Stephen LaBerge and Howard Rheingold. 2. "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self" by Robert Waggoner. 3. Research articles from the Journal of Lucid Dreaming and other reputable publications.
Spiritual Growth and Self-Discovery: 1. "The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment" by Eckhart Tolle. 2. "The Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield. 3. Explore works by Carl Jung on the integration of the unconscious and spiritual growth.
Here are additional suggested readings for further exploration:
Star Seeds: 1. "The Three Waves of Volunteers and the New Earth" by Dolores Cannon. 2. "Bringers of the Dawn: Teachings from the Pleiadians" by Barbara Marciniak. 3. "The Hidden Messages in Water" by Masaru Emoto (for exploring the connection to nature and consciousness).
Lucid Dreaming: 1. "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche. 2. "Lucid Dreaming: A Concise Guide to Awakening in Your Dreams and in Your Life" by Stephen LaBerge. 3. "Dreaming Wide Awake: Lucid Dreaming, Shamanic Healing, and Psychedelics" by David Jay Brown.
Spiritual Growth and Self-Discovery: 1. "The Seat of the Soul" by Gary Zukav. 2. "The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom" by Don Miguel Ruiz. 3. "The Art of Happiness" by Dalai Lama XIV and Howard Cutler.
Connection to Extraterrestrial Origins: 1. "Communion: A True Story" by Whitley Strieber. 2. "The Ra Material: An Ancient Astronaut Speaks" by Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert, and James Allen McCarty. 3. "Messages from the Pleiades: The Contact Notes of Eduard Billy Meier" by Wendelle C. Stevens.
Remember to approach these readings with an open mind and a critical perspective, as belief systems vary, and personal experiences can be highly subjective. Additionally, staying updated with recent publications and academic research in these fields can provide a well-rounded understanding of evolving perspectives and discussions.
Article Summary: Navigating Cosmic Realms - Star Seeds and Lucid Dreams
In this exploration of the intriguing intersection between star seeds and lucid dreaming, we embarked on a journey into the realms of cosmic beliefs and dream consciousness. Star seeds, individuals who perceive their souls as originating from celestial bodies, exhibit distinct characteristics such as heightened intuition, a strong sense of purpose, and a deep connection to nature. We then delved into the classifications within the star seed community—Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow children—each contributing unique attributes to the tapestry of cosmic identities.
Transitioning into the world of lucid dreaming, we unveiled the phenomenon as a state of conscious dream control, where individuals are not only aware they are dreaming but can actively participate in and manipulate the dream environment. Through personal anecdotes and scientific studies, we witnessed the vividness and control experienced by lucid dreamers, highlighting the potential of dreams as a canvas for creative exploration.
As we examined the interplay between star seed beliefs and lucid dreaming practices, it became evident that these realms intertwine, offering a profound avenue for spiritual growth and self-discovery. Lucid dreamers who identify as star seeds share their experiences of encountering extraterrestrial beings and visiting celestial realms during dreams. These shared narratives underscore the transformative potential of dreams to amplify spiritual awareness, access cosmic guidance, and integrate cosmic energies into waking life.
In the final section, we explored how the combination of star seed beliefs and lucid dreaming forms a symbiotic relationship. Insights from those who feel a direct connection to their extraterrestrial origins through lucid dreams revealed a seamless integration of cosmic insights into their spiritual journeys. These shared experiences serve as a testament to the powerful synergy between cosmic beliefs and dream exploration.
In essence, the article invites readers to contemplate the profound connections between their cosmic identities and the boundless possibilities within the lucid dream landscape. Whether navigating the cosmos as a star seed or actively shaping dreams, individuals find a unique path to self-discovery, spiritual growth, and an enriched understanding of the intricate relationship between the human psyche and the cosmic tapestry that surrounds us.

I have been constantly improving my score which went from 1330-1460 within a week, and now after Practice Test 6 my score got significantly worse at 1420.
My English Score was the reduced, going from 720 (P5)- 650 (P6), while my Math Score has consistently improved, with currently standing at 750.
The Module 1 was easy (Only got 1 Vocab wrong).
But, English Module 2 is the problem.
Firstly, it is very lengthy, I had to make guesses in multiple questions of reading. (Thus got 3-4 Logically completes text Ques. /Graph Ques.)
I got Vocab wrong, Subject Verb Agreement wrong and Punctuation Wrongs in Writing.
So, is there anyway to make drastic improvement in day and achieve 1500+
Also, this is my only chance, for SAT Test are quite expensive in our country and we won't be able to afford another one.

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether using "literal" translations of the New Testament like Young's will help people more accurately understand the use of the Greek term aionios and the concept "eternal" therein
My last comment before being blocked:

This won’t really help anyone who doesn’t anyone have a good grasp on Greek or linguistics in general. It very well may only confuse them further.
I think I’ve seen some outdated lexicons — and many others — try to reduce the fundamental meaning of aion to “age,” under the guise of greater literalism. This is a huge fallacy, though. Critically lexicographically speaking, aion has no fundamental meaning that’s shared between all of its uses. For example, you’ll be hard-pressed to find any real semantic connection between its old Homeric and poetic use as “life-force” or even “marrow,” and its use as “permanence, perpetuity.”
However, the adjective aionios clearly etymologically derives from the latter meaning of aion — also clearly distinct from the late use of aion as “age, era.”

Context
Subject of discussion: On the meaning of the noun kolasis in koine Greek, and whether it's semantically distinct from the related noun timoria
My last comment before being blocked:

Yeah the comment that I linked to has been taken out of its original context (because the original post was removed). But it’s a response to the claim that kolasis is ultimately a form of correction done for the benefit of a person, while timoria is truly retributive punishment or torture.
Aristotle had specific rhetorical aims in offering an analysis that was somewhat akin to this — though not as specific.
But what everything after the intro of my linked comment demonstrates is that in actual usage from about the 5th century BCE onward, there’s no semantic distinction between the words at all. Kolasis is ubiquitously used to refer to execution and all sorts of gnarly torture.

Note: Legitimately no clue why I was blocked. Conversation was on the AncientGreek subreddit, and was barely even related to Christianity at all.
Context
Subject of discussion: Roughly the same as the previous one.
My last comment before being permanently banned from ChristianUniversalism:

So for the non-Greek speakers, let me explain. This meme appears to be arguing that the phrase on the left — not actually used in the Bible — truly means "eternal torment"; but the phrase on the right, which is used in the Bible, means only a temporary kind of constructive correction or punishment.
There are quite a few problems here, though. To start with the most significant: It's somewhat unusual to see the adjective adialeiptos held up as the model for expressing true eternality or perpetuity: one that the Bible might have used if it had really intended to do so (in distinction from aionios), as alleged. It's unusual because adialeiptos is used twice in the Bible; and in both of these instances, it's very clearly not used to express eternality or perpetuity. Instead, it seems to be used more often to denote something that's constant in frequency — including over a comparatively short period of time — rather than something that endures over long expanses of time and/or truly eternally.
More often than not, the more common argument these days is that an adjective like aidios is what truly expresses eternality in distinction from aionios. I covered this other claim rather exhaustively in this recent post, too.
As for the nouns that they modify in the meme: BDAG, the standard lexicon of Biblical Greek, notes for kolasis that earlier philosophical "limitation of the term . . . to disciplinary action . . . is not reflected in gener[al] usage." This also addresses the misconception, perpetuated in more questionable lexicons from the earlier 20th century, that in actual Biblical and contemporaneous usage, kolasis denotes constructive or educational correction while timoria denotes retributive punishment or torture. Instead, they appear to be used interchangeably in all relevant literature.
Finally, some notes on form and spelling. Timoria is feminine, so the accusative will be timorian, not timorion. And now my most pedantic gripe: as a general rule of thumb, it's kind of awkward to cite generalized or hypothetical phrases in the accusative. Instead the nominative is standard here; so you can just use kolasis instead of kolasin, etc.

Note: It's inarguable that this comment led to my ban. However, the moderators went on to claim that it was instead part of a larger pattern of combativeness, and that this was the real reason. At the time, I protested this, and pointed to my recent comment history on the subreddit and how it demonstrated a lack of combativeness. On further clarification, the mods eventually admitted that it was more a pattern of constant disagreement with users on the subreddit rather than combativeness/rudeness per se, and that they preferred a subreddit of like minds (even if claims that were constantly repeated there were historically inaccurate, etc.).
Context
Subject of discussion: The Hebrew syntax of Leviticus 18:22/20:13, and whether the adverbial accusative phrase מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה can function qualitatively or not
My last comment before being blocked:

It’s hard to believe people treat Hebrew here as if it should function exactly like English (mostly) does. There are plenty of instances in Hebrew where the accusative alone functions qualitatively, where elsewhere we might see an explicit preposition. (To add to that, there's no explicit "in" either.)
This is the case elsewhere even when we have a cognate accusative, as in Leviticus 18:22/20:13 — such as in Leviticus 25:42.
As a sidenote, interpreting it overly literally as "woman's bed(s)" is a mistake, too. מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה is effectively the same idiom מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר as in Numbers 31:17 and elsewhere, just with the gender switched, and flipped active/passive. All together, Lev 18:22 is very clearly should not sleep/have sex with a male in the same manner as [one would have] intercourse with a woman — just as Leviticus 25:42 talks about how Israelites shouldn’t be sold in the same way as slaves are sold, לֹא יִמָּכְרוּ מִמְכֶּרֶת עָבֶד.

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether נָחַם in Genesis 6:6 means "avenge" or "console," or alternatively "regret."
My last comment before being blocked

So even if it can mean that, you still need to offer an argument as to why it more plausibly does mean that here. Possibility is not probability.

Context
Subject of discussion: On what grounds my interlocutor interpreted the lesson of the Tower of Babel narrative in Genesis 11 to be about "the dangers of hierarchy and the ways the powerful seek to kill God"
My last comment before being blocked:

You speak of “reading the text” as if there’s anything else said about the building process itself other than those three sentences that I posted.
Also, midrash (as in actual rabbinic midrash) is near-medieval fan fiction with utterly no historical relation to the original narrative, nor any critical insight into it.

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether the Latin Vulgate's translation of the New Testament introduced distorted notions of afterlife punishment, in contrast to the original Greek.
My last comment before being blocked:

Do you know Greek or Latin?

Context
Subject of discussion: The meaning of "savior"/saved in 1 Timothy 4:10, and whether this suggests different degrees of mores of eschatological salvation
My last comment before being blocked:

I’m not contrasting interpretation and evidence. Why on earth would I be doing that?
I’m precisely claiming that all of the evidence suggests exactly what I claimed: that 1 Timothy 4 has nothing to do with degrees of eschatological salvation — a notion utterly absent from early Christianity, maybe outside Gnosticism.

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether there was any (rudimentary) notion of purgatory in the New Testament; and whether I'm "clearly a Catholic/Christian trying to fish for people by coming off (poorly) as an intellectual."
My last comment before being banned from excatholic: Too long to post in full; here are the first and last lines:

Your combative and dismissive tone almost makes it seem like you have some sort of emotional or theological investment in this issue. Try viewing it more dispassionately, from a purely historical perspective.

...

The New Testament isn’t a cohesive theological work, but a repository of different and indeed contradictory traditions — sometimes even within the same individual book. Eschatological traditions are no different. Don’t think like a fundamentalist.

Context
Subject of discussion: The function of the morpheme מִ in the word מִשְׁכְּבֵי in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and whether my interlocutor claimed that it functioned prepositionally/comparatively or not.
My last comment before being blocked:

You cannot be serious. You said it was a particle of comparison!
You… don’t even know the distinction I’m talking about, do you? You have a degree in Hebrew and you think the distinction between basic nominalization of a verb with preformative mem and the presence of inseparable min is a somewhat artificial one? That is literally shocking.

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether there was an attested Jewish practice of quoting the first words of a psalm as shorthand for reciting the psalm.
My last comment before being blocked:

You can call it “evidence” or “counter-evidence” or “a pineapple.” But I can’t believe I have to explain that if you want someone to believe that a claim you’re making is true, you’ll actually have to provide data/arguments to support it.
Your word alone isn’t good enough. That’s why we don’t hire random people off the street to be scientists or professors.
(As for my own claim, I’m claiming something doesn’t exist — viz. it’s not attested. I’m not sure how I can further prove that. The only way we could falsify it is if you offer contrary evidence that it does exist.)

Context
Subject of discussion: Whether the "Gehenna" referred to in the New Testament was a literal trash pit around the time of Jesus.
My last comment before being permanently banned from dankchristianmemes:

It’s a myth that it was used as a trash pit. In the Hebrew Bible it’s a notorious valley in which children were immolated in ritual sacrifice.
By the time of the New Testament, the idea and imagery of Gehenna had been transformed — from an actual earthly valley to an otherworldly realm of afterlife punishment.

Note: Originally perma-banned for "antisemitism." I had to go to lengthy effort to track down the moderators, and finally convince them that my comment was a mundane reference to how the Biblical texts themselves (Jeremiah 7:31, etc.) mention idolaters/heretics in the First Temple period sacrificing their children by fire in the valley of Hinnom. Ban was reversed after this.
Context
Subject of discussion: Whether eternal conscious torment was believed by any Christian prior to the 4th century, and/or only became prominent "around the 11th century"
My last comment before being blocked: Looks like I edited/removed the bulk of the comment. If I remember correctly, I was indeed quite rude.
Notes: Yeah I think I deserved this one.

I just finished taking my TEAS for the second time. 1 year ago, I took it for the first time and scored a 78% total. After finishing it today, I scored a total of 84%! This is better than last time, although I was reaching for an 85%. I got 84.6% in Reading, 94.1% in Math, 84.1% in Science and 72.7% in English/Language.
My weak spot is English. I especially struggled with subject-verb agreement and pronoun-antecedent. These two topics were at least 5 of the questions that appeared on this section of the exam. It’s important to really put aside time to study the concepts in detail because the questions can be tricky! Good luck to anyone taking the exam. Take your time and double check if you have extra time!

This is a crossover fanfiction between original fiction titles: Nature of Predators by SpacePaladin15 and The Last Angel by Proximal Flame respectively. All credit and rights reserved goes to them for making such amazing science fiction settings that I wanted to put this together.
You can read The Last Angel here: Be warned, it's decently long, and at its third installment so far. I highly suggest reading it before reading this, or this story will not make sense.

Otherwise, enjoy the story! Thanks again to u/jesterra54 and u/skais01 for beta and checking of work!
First Prev Next
Memory transcription subject: Captain Sovlin, Federation Fleet Command
Date [standardized human time]: October 24, 2136
I still couldn't believe what Nikonus had told me. The history of species in this galaxy was far more than was let on to public knowledge, and the actions of Nikonus' storied...caste had left me wanting for answers. But initially, it was terrifying...and infuriating.
"You mean to tell me you've been keeping the secret of omnivores in The Federation for centuries!?"
"A necessary evil! The mixed taint of herbivory and carnivores left them, your race included, vulnerable in the worst way to its effects!"
"You would dare keep their origins under wraps?! Demonize predators, yet keep them in so close proximity without our knowing!? For what purpose is this madness, Nikonus?"
But as I vented my anger at Nikonus, and started to run dry, his arguments began to make a chilling sense...
"The aspect of omnivory alone is not enough to condemn a species, that is why the cure exists! While there can still be predatory taint, it is kept tempered by the herbivore within! Look to the Krakotl! Their aggression was a natural trait of evolution, and yet still a useful one. We gave them the cure at their request when we revealed to them the taint's effects!"
"If it is not enough on its own, then why are none left, even in the slightest hint? Where is the exception to the rule!?"
He had hit upon a horrifying concept that involved the Arxur. One I had never considered until recently, as Nikonus proved my worst suspicions.
"Once, perhaps, before my time, there was a lighter sentence carried upon omnivores. But now it has changed. Just as you feared, the Arxur take advantage of that horrible diet of fate, twisting omnivores until they turn against the herd that takes them in. The cure's power is threefold: both to prevent the plague of predatory behavior, the taint, and to prevent the Arxur locking their claws into them!"
"You...you don't mean..."
"This isn't the first time the Arxur, or even an another omnivorous race has tried to manipulate another. Most were found in secret before they could do enough damage, but some...some were conditioned against us before we even knew of them. They were forced to be exterminated, for the taint had already become unfix-able, not even a forced Cure enough..."
"...But the Arxur, unlike the others, had been seen in the public eye. We could not risk the general morale of the Federation on one species of predator. And true to fashion, when the ignorant public government of those days tried to uplift them, they proved our very point, and made a scenario we now cannot easily escape."
Perhaps long ago, the 'Cure' was more measured, slow, careful, and ethical, but now, so long as the galaxy still harbored the Arxur, there was no chance to use anything but the complicated solution. Humanity was already experiencing the effects of Arxur manipulation as we speak, and I was forced to eventually make a choice on that front: save their biology, their makeup, and risk the Arxur taking advantage and extermination; or give them the Cure, and defile their species.
I couldn't decide. Both choices felt sickening in those moments. Nikonus even sympathized with me, in that lament of so defiling a sentient's nature, especially ones so kind as the humans have been. But he was far more certain of a danger than I was.
"Omnivores, unlike obligate carnivores, have that spark that allows for empathic imprinting. They are not completely gone to terrorizing instincts, Sovlin! The humans are proof of that, as were every other omnivore race cured in the past, yours included. But their predator side, if not quelled by the Cure, will eventually be opened up. It will be untold magnitudes worse if opened up by the Arxur no less. It is a necessary evil to give their grotesque nature a chance to live in our galaxy..."
I had asked for time to consider, and he had given it to me, but not before giving me a task first.
"If it will help you steel your resolve, I suggest you visit the Galactic Archives. They will tell of our history with the Cure in detail."
"The...Archives? The galactic web ones?"
"No. These Archives are far more exclusive. Visit Talsk, and bring this medallion with you. Talk to the central processing committee, and tell them that Nikonus inducted you. There, the true history of our endless battle with predatory taint can be found, and your resolve hardened to understand its necessity. There you can see why this must be kept a secret. I'll give you your time. Now go, spend it properly."
And so, nearly as soon as I had arrived at Aafa, I was on my shuttle to Talsk instead. Another [day and a half] of travel lay ahead of me, and all I could consider was the choice of the Cure in front of me.
Could one so heinously defile a species, especially one as kind as Humanity, and live with themselves?
Could I so condemn Samantha, Carlos, Noah, all that I knew? Could I condemn that human, Marcel, that I so harshly tortured even further?!
...What would I have been like had our species not been cured? Would I be a frothing monster? More like humanity? Would I even live at all?!
No! No! I cannot decide now...it's...too much. I need to take advantage of what Nikonus had told me. Of these...Archives.
A lush opportunity had grown in my garden, and I must care for it, lest it wilt. The true history of the Federation was stored there. Every good, every bad, every justification and record of species both known and unknown to me. If I was to determine whether the Federation truly deserved to still be believed in; to still follow in its footsteps, and betray the human's trust through these troubling times, I would need to see all of it.
If the shadow caste had done this countless times, there must be a good reason. So I held hope, even in this dark clouded mind, that whatever the Cure took away, far outweighed the detriment of...this plague...
WARNING: Formatting of memory transcription non-standard, conversion may cause loss of data. Do you wish to continue?
[Yes]
Memory transcription subject: Chief Nikonus of the Kolshian Commonwealth
Date [standardized human time]: October 24, 2136
Sovlin's pestering had gotten him far closer to the truth than I had thought it would. Were he not so well known to the galaxy, both by us and Humanity, I would have him disposed of quietly. But he did still show loyalty towards our great Federation of Species, and that had left a unique opportunity.
One did not commonly find the public government and military capable of a true believer; despite his firsthand proof of omnivores capability for empathy Sovlin was in a very odd position, and it meant we could try a different approach to induction: the truth, but not the whole of it yet.
And so, I spun a story of victimization, of tragedy in use of the Cure upon omnivorous species. I pointed to the secret successes we had, The Krakotl, even his own race. They were proof that 'despite the defilement', the Cure worked for the better. That the ends justify the means.
Peh, as if it defiled them. The Cure saved omnivores, not ruined them! The taint would annihilate everything they hold in common with herbivorous species given enough time. This let them live some aspect of a proper life.
The Arxur story, however, was a bit harder to spin. While the Arxur had tried to help other predator races in the beginning, it was not the use of the Cure as a deterrent that prevented further attempts, but our agreement with Betterment to a status quo. That tidbit, thankfully, was not in the Archives officially. That the Arxur were going back on that deal to try and break our [Long War] would not stand, and was proof that they weren't to be trusted. Just like all predators were.
But, now that Sovlin was out of my personal reach, a tender grasp would be needed to guide him in the proper path to caste induction. I could not let my story be contradicted quickly. He would have to be kept from the more unsavory records of genetic and cultural engineering until we were certain of his loyalty in the face of the truth.
And so, while Sovlin boarded a far better liner to Talsk than his laughable human shuttle, I made a call to the Archives on Talsk, far ahead of him. They were warned of the induction process, and the exact plan of exposure he should be shown chronologically. If it did not go well, we could at least get rid of him more quietly there. But if it did work out...
I didn't know a more personal and competent captain for an attack on the traitorous Dominion with our true forces. A promotion would be in order for him, perhaps Shadow Admiral?
But that was out of my concern for now. No, what came next was publicity. While the Krakotl's attempt had failed to exterminate Humanity, I had to make certain the Kolshian Commonwealth at large did not have any traceable link to the decision. We merely were neutral, and that meant an air of apathy and discouragement towards their actions while still privately supplying them. The Federation would face tribulations soon, and that meant a strong union, while still keeping the image of believable, meaningful disagreement.
The Federation cannot falter to adversity. Not while I'm in charge.
Memory transcription subject: General Míngzé Zhao, Republic of China
Date [standardized human time]: October 24, 2136
The escort fleet brought in to take Nemesis to the Moon was ragtag, to put it mildly. Our industry did not have enough time to pump out ships lost in the Battle of Earth, and as such, I was forced to wrangle up whatever counted for our greatest firepower left. Only a single Venlil ship, the VSC Unfleeting, was capital-weight among us. But, so long as the report made about Nemesis' intentions remained true, my paranoia of being blown out of the sky was likely unfounded.
We guided Nemesis to the Lunar Shipyards, a short trip from here. They had been trying to clear room and reserve space for Nemesis' massive frame in advance, and with enough elbow grease and pressure from the government, the area had been cleared. It did, however, look deeply amusing to see a ship of Nemesis' size try to park up to a shipyard mount module barely half of hers.
We did not have the resources to make that work, sadly. The gargantuan ship was forced to free-float in the cleared region until we could get our hands on more fastening frames to hold her. Until then, over half of her length merely stuck out into open vacuum, with no support otherwise. We'd have to either tow in the other side of the shipyard to close on her, or make due with a repair schedule that only worked half the ship, before flipping her the other way.
We decided to start with the not-engine side first, given that having her immobile would keep the AI ship and its capabilities under better control until we had an inkling of its full intentions.
Speaking of which...I was still partially unsure of what to make of Nemesis' surrender to our custody upon confirmation I was an authority in the UN military. She made mention of both articles of proper treatment to POW's from our time, and likely hers too, given some did not show up in any database my officers checked. Did she feel guilt for the human and Venlil ships destroyed above Earth by her? I'd have to speak with Whitmer.
But, despite Nemesis' initial friendliness and willingness to cooperate so far, I still felt birds of worry fly above. Was it irrational to mistrust an AI that has so much attachment to humanity? Perhaps, but I could not deny that one wrong move could spell doom for humanity, also. I had no idea just how much we could even control Nemesis, and if it was possible for it to choose otherwise from its current path should we push too far on ours. Whitmer was the only human so far with any semblance of long interaction with Red One, and I would need her input on anything important related to this.
So I put a hail out to the Snow Hidden. The small Arxur patrol boat was quick to respond, with the image of both Special Envoy Whitmer and Specific Advisor Lithke on the holoscreen. Lithke merely deferred respect distantly, while Whitmer properly addressed me.
"Hail, General Zhao of the UN." Lithke hissed.
"Sir! Special Envoy Hailey Whitmer reporting for brief, sir!" Hailey spoke with a salute.
"At ease, Whitmer. Care to tell me why Nemesis surrendered to our custody upon contact with us?"
"She did?!" Lithke spoke in exasperation.
"Well, Red did display guilt and worry for her actions above Earth. She is distinctly distressed by her killing of human ships, and is awaiting judgement for her actions as a result."
I frowned at that. So...she does acknowledge that she had killed thousands. That made things troublesome. "But why would she have even fired on them if she knew it?"
"She didn't, sir. She was in a fugue state from battle damage, and mistook anything that didn't match UEC databases as Compact vessels."
That...that's the most distressing 'relief' I've ever heard.
If she could be in a fugue state from battle damage, and she's only suffered more battle damage above Earth...
What if it happens again? What if she's still on the brink of another fugue state?! Will she fire on Earth directly, mistaking our ships as invasion fleets? What of the Arxur!? Will they help us, or turn on us too for a human-made ship firing on them in a mistake?
Hailey just effectively showed me a loaded grenade, telling me it's at risk of going off, and then handed it to me pin-first. So long as Nemesis retained this...processor damage, if she flipped at any time, it could risk hundreds of thousands more dead just on the moon alone! Let alone Earth!
"I-I...see..." I shook myself silently back to the conversation at hand. "She is not at risk of going back into this fugue state currently, is she?"
But Hailey had no such good news. "I do not know, sir. Neither does Red One. She is effectively hosting the artificial intelligence equivalent of brain damage from her injuries. While it may be far more repairable than a human brain-"
"...She still poses a massive threat every moment it isn't addressed. We have no idea how close another destructive trance might be to happening." Fuck. This is just my goddamn luck, isn't it.
I rallied myself back to planning. "Whitmer, contact Nemesis immediately and ask how we can help her repair her systems damage as soon as possible. I need a plan yesterday for this potential threat."
Hailey looked at me with a somewhat confused look, before carrying out the order. Oh, now you're doubting my very real fear of this happening again? She's already killed nearly twenty-two thousand Venlil and Humans, with little conscious control of her actions!
Lithke stood from his chair at this revelation. "Hailey, why did you not tell me? I must speak with Chief Hunter Isif immediately. He must be forewarned." With it, he stomped to the back compartment in a rush, clearly intending to converse with Arxur fleet elements through a secure channel. No matter, for now, Whitmer and her experience were what mattered to disabling this ticking time bomb.
Why is it that whenever humanity dreams up AI, we can't help but make a flaw this deadly?...
+CONFED IO.5+
+READING MAIN SEQ.MEM+
I had a hard time attempting to dock with the notably small shipyard around the Moon. This was nothing akin to Lunar Prime, the shipyard that had created her. The specifications and dimensions for ships in this universe clearly fell way smaller, not trying to break a kilometer length if it could be helped.
Was that due to limitations, or just a common practice of shipbuilding?
I did not know. There were things in this reality that defied my current comprehension, and I wished sorely to learn the methods behind them. What Hailey had said earlier - an energy-shortcut process to creation of antimatter - opened the door to a wealth of possible mass production avenues of antimatter. Sure, antimatter could be produced in large scales with the technology of my native reality, but it was not cost-efficient, and required immensely massive parallel particle accelerator structures, with an absurdly large EM trap collection to store it. The Compact had various facilities, and the UEC even had one positioned around Jupiter, once. But the ability to just simply...flip matter to opposite polarity elementary particles, was something I had no experience with.
Yet, with such developments in tech, why was everything so far behind her in capabilities? Was the technological development of this Earth so schizophrenic to have found these novel solutions; to have found a non-shockspace FTL, or a mass production capable method of antimatter creation, and yet could not take those energy densities anywhere close to a civilization like hers?
No. I had to take into account that humanity was younger, newer to the stars. They likely hadn't even spent a century properly in it.
...But they were further along at this period of time than we were. Pre-Diaspora humanity had taken an extra century past this reality’s date just to develop colonies in Sol. They were mostly scientific in nature, until the Red Death convinced us to spread out for safety's sake, preserving our species across both Sol and other nearby systems. Whatever divergence in our histories had taken place, it must have been far earlier than expected.
I had no idea what to make of this strange reality. It held species, technologies, and histories I had no knowledge of…
...And I spat in it the very first moment I arrived. Humanity had lost nine-thousand sailors to my ineptitude, my fugue. It was not my intention, and yet it happened nonetheless. I would not be surprised if they demand for me to shut down for such a heinous crime against my creator race.
...But I still wanted to live. I wanted to see this universe, where humanity was luckier, faster, alive despite all odds.
So I docked awkwardly within their cramped shipyard, and I waited. I waited, agonizing about what I could say to the 'General Zhao' I had spoken to, to either justify my continued existence, to repay my debt. If I was dead, I could not keep humanity safe. I prepared for a dressing down of my actions in the worst possible light, and knew that regardless of my justifications, I deserved some semblance of punishment. I had already cited the UEC's Principles of War in regards to prisoners, and even made mention of old Geneva Accords, which the UN of my time had used. I made no attempt to hide my surrender to their custody and judgement. So when a hail from Gunboat Diplomacy had come through again to my chassis, I expected the worst.
...What I did not expect was the quiet panic on the General's breath to my well-being.
"Nemesis, I have heard some rather horrifying possibilities from Special Envoy Hailey Whitmer as to your state of fugue above Earth. I need to know if you are at risk of falling into said state again, and what must be done to prevent it."
They...weren't going directly to a war tribunal?
I processed his request for information for a few moments. Ah, I see the issue.
He was concerned I would fall into the fugue state again, and risk killing more of humanity in the confusion. I understood already far too well what I was capable of in that state, given my current reservations. While my systems currently reported non-optimal stability in the main and sub-processing networks that made up my consciousness, I had no clue how much of the data I might be missing from damage. While my solid state memory storage was not damaged, my systems could still be at risk of a subprocessor failure again from a source I could not monitor in my state.
I beamed back a reply. "I will need raw material resources, and manpower to navigate and document damages in areas I cannot monitor or assess currently. I will do my utmost to not fall into another fugue, and a human presence on me will reduce the risk of anything happening should that occur. I do not know of your capability to repair me for the latter, but for the former...I may have an idea."
First Prev Next

Abstract
(add)
Overview
In 143A (1812), Johann Vater said the following:

“The unknown language of the stone of Rosetta, and of the bandages often found with the mummies, was capable of being analyzed into an alphabet consisting of little more than thirty letters”.
— Johann Vater (143A/1812), editorial note to Johann Adelung's Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachkunde [Mithridates, or General Linguistics]; cited by Andrew Robinson (A51/2006) in The Last Man Who Knew Everything (pg. 154)

In 100A (1855), John Leitch, the editor of Young’s collected works, commented:

“This Essay [”Languages” (131A/1824), in Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. v] is almost entirely composed of two articles which Thomas Young contributed to the Quarterly Review: the one on Johann Adelung's Mithridates, in vol. x., and the other on works by Jamieson and Townsend On Languages, in vol. xiv.
Independently of the intrinsic merits of these articles, the former derives an additional interest from the fact, that it was while Dr. Young was engaged in the perusal of Adelung's learned work in 142A (1813), that the idea of applying himself to the study of the Egyptian hieroglyphics entered his mind, his attention being called to the subject by a remark of Professor Johann Vater, the editor of the Mithridates, who asserts that the Egyptian language is capable of being reduced to an alphabet of about thirty characters (see: supra, pg. 264).
In 139A (1816), Young complied with an application made to him by Mr. Macvey Napier, to write some articles for a Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, conducted under the superintendence of that gentleman, and completed in 130A (1825), and the amalgamation of the two papers in the Quarterly Review into the article LANGUAGES was one of the results of their agreement.
In his preface to the Supplement the editor makes repeated reference to Dr. Young, "to whose profound and accurate knowledge, rare erudition, and other various attainments," he says that "that work is largely indebted in almost every department which it embraces."

Wood
In 1A (1954), Alexander Wood, in his Thomas Young: Natural Philosopher 1773-1829 (pg. 283), commented the following:

… a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven“ [Genesis 10:1-9]. This particular theory of the origin of language lasted till the latter half of the eighteenth century, when the researches of Sir William Jones (1746-94) revealed Sanskrit and led to a wealth of knowledge of the relationship of ancient and modern languages.
Young was a contemporary of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), whose essay on 'The Origin of Language' (183A/1772) marks the beginning of the scientific explanation of language.
Herder refutes the divine-origin theory of language, making it quite clear that man invented language, although the evidence available at this time was not conclusive. Young's knowledge of the ancient languages and his mastery of several modern languages reminds us of the similar attainments of his contemporary Sir William Jones, Judge of the Supreme Court of Calcutta, who knew ten foreign languages including Hebrew, Arabic and Persian. He also had made a special study of Sanskrit and advanced theories of the common origin it afforded for the later Greek, Latin, Gothic and Celtic languages.
In 149A (1806) appeared volume I of Professor Johann Adelung's Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachkunde [Mithridates, or General Linguistics]. Through the efforts of Professor Vater, as editor, there was published, three years afterwards, volume II, and in 143A/1812 volume III.
Part 1 of this book was reviewed by Young in The Quarterly Review for October 142A (1813), under the title: ’Adelung's General History of Languages”.

It is here that Young coined the term “Indo-European”.

Johann Christoph Adelung (1732-1806), a distinguished German philologist and grammarian, was the principal librarian to the Elector of Saxony, having been appointed in 168A (1787). His complete account of German grammar, vocabulary and idiom is produced in his Grammatico: A critical dictionary of the Higher German Tongue, and so recalls Dr Johnson's similar efforts in our own language. Adelung followed this work by an account of Saxon history and comparative language, which is to be found in volume I of his Mithridates, referred to above. Young had attempted to give ’an abstract of all that was either known with certainty, or supposed with probability, respecting the relations of different languages to one another, and the steps …

Notes

1. This post originated from comment: here; which originated from: here.

References

• Adelung, Johann. (149A/1806). Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachkunde [Mithridates, or General Linguistics, Volume One, Volume Two, Volume Three] (editor: Johann Vater). Publisher, 143A/1812.
• Young, Thomas. (142A/1813). “Adelung’s General History of Languages”, London Quarterly Review, 10(19):250-292, Oct.
• Jamieson, John. (141/1814). Hermes Scythicus: or the Radical Affinities of the Greek and Latin Languages to the Gothic: to which is prefixed a Dissertation on the Historical Proofs of the Scythian Origin of the Greeks (pages: 390). Edinburgh.
• Townsend, Joseph. (140A/1815). The Character of Moses established for Veracity as a Historian recording Events subsequent to the Deluge (pages: 436). Bath.
• Young, Thomas. (140A/1815). “Jamieson and Townsend on Ancient Languages” (five language classes, pg. 97), London Quarterly Review, 14:96-112, Oct.
• Young, Thomas. (131A/1824). “Languages”, Encyclopædia Britannica, volume 5; in: Miscellaneous Works of the Late Thomas Young, Volume Three (pgs. 478-) (editor: John Leitch). Murray, 100A/1855.
• Young, Thomas. (126A/1829). Miscellaneous Works of the Late Thomas Young, Volume Three (editor: John Leitch). Murray, 100A/1855.
• Wood, Alexander. (1A/1954). Thomas Young: Natural Philosopher 1773-1829 (pg. 283). Cambridge A56/2011.

So, I was doing some research on the authorship of the Gospels and the New Testament, trying to find what scholars think. It turns out, the majority opinion (with very few fringe exceptions) rejects the traditional authorship and conclude that the Gospels are anonymous. Now, what do they mean by anonymous? They mean that not only are the authors name not internally in the text, but the author gives no sign on who they are. Typically, Christian apologists say that other authors leave out their names in their works but scholars have internal evidence to believe that it was written by that author.
Also, another approach that Christians apologist say is that the Church Fathers and the Church tradition on these all agree that in the traditional authorship,. For example, scholars have many issues with some writings on the Church Fathers regarding the authorship’s of the text:

There's a tendency to forget that multiple attestation only works if our sources are independent. I can, for example, find multiple sources telling me Obama was not born in the US, but how are they useful in deciding the question?
Consider Papias, for example, We have his claims about Matthew and Mark suggesting he is referring to our gospels, but this is debatable since his descriptions don't seem to match our gospels. Did he know something about our Matthew and Mark? Was he ill informed about these works or was he referring to different texts? It's particularly difficult to see how the idea that Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language bears any relation to our Matthew. Further, acording to Carlson the citation from Papias has even bigger problems
The length and detail of this passage make it virtually irresistible for critics to bypass the layers of embedded discourse and treat this comment about the Gospels of Mark and Mathew as if they were a self-contained block of a tradition. It is not. The elder’s comment about Mark was presumably uttered not out of the blue but within some larger discourse context. This context is lost to us. Indeed, what the elder said is not by any means intact, but extracted, edited, and embedded by Papias into a different context of his own creation. Furthermore, Papias’s presentation of these remarks also does not come down to us intact, but only as preserved by Eusebius—and Eusebius’s agenda is different from Papias’s. Eusebius too extracted, edited, and embedded this statement into a context of his own making. We have to be cautious in interpreting it. As one scholar put it, “Papias says only what Eusebius wants him to say.” As a result, the most famous statement in antiquity about the origins of Mark and Matthew is a joint production of three different people, living at three different times, with three different purposes: the elder, Papias, and Eusebius. All of them have contributed to this passage in their different ways, and all of them had different purposes for discussing their writings. If we are to make sense of this, we will have do what scholars of fragmentary works have long known. We must deal with the fundamental issue of context.
So even if Papias got his information from a reliable source, his attestation has its problems.

We also have issues where Luke(?) is often referred to as the “Gospel of Our Lord,” by Marcion (and I believe it is dated much earlier). So, it is not as Universals as apologist make it out to be and there seems to be a strong rejection of the traditional authorships in scholarship:

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them provide the name of the author within their text. While the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle, most scholars today consider this passage to be a later addition (see below). The idea of the Gospels being anonymous isn't a new idea. Justin Martyr in his book named "1 apology" explicitly states that the disciples were illiterate. This means that John couldn't have written John, Matthew couldn't have written Matthew and so on and so forth. There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.

Mark

According to tradition and early church fathers, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

Matthew

Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis, held that the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus, had written a Gospel in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea). Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus. However, Papias's description does not correspond well with the Gospel of Matthew: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew; it depends on the Greek Gospel of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document; it is not a collection of sayings; and it is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness. Although the identity of the author of our Gospel of Matthew is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria, and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.

Luke and Acts

There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus. This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world. According to tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.

John

John 21:24 identifies the source of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century tradition, first attested by Irenaeus, this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee. Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31. However, there is considerable debate about how and when the appendix was added, and by whom. For example, several scholars argue it was added after "the beloved disciple" had died. The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95, and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.

That being said, for my document what should I do? I want to have a scholarly approach but scholars (including many Christians) reject the traditional authorship?

Afaik, SOV and SVO are the most common structure for spoken languages, making up almost 90% of them. I was wondering if there are some statistics for sign languages from different countries and continents.
Also, after taking a quick look at Korean and Japanese grammar I wonder if people conceptualize statements as topic-comment instead of subject-predicate.
I saw a video once of someone signing "a telephone pole falls down" by first making the gesture for "telephone pole", and then does the movement for "fall down" while keeping the shape of their hands+arms the same as the sign for "telephone pole". Kinda like https://youtu.be/mcBl7hLSKb0?si=NeGiv-V7CBPCXaWf (TREE-fall-down)... shape for tree, movement for fall down. Are those sentence structures common? Phrase/clause = Noun shape + verb movement?