User talk:24.253.207.96

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (24.253.207.96) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! — Paleo Neonate  – 13:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
What is the matter with you? Don't like the truth? I gave the Bible verse from the King James that matched the New Revised Standard Version that you used. I gave a reference work that is a leading source in the field to show that it was not my interpretation in case you went that way. You deleted this the truth because you want to promote a lie because you are a fraud. If you deleted my verse then you must also delete the verse you gave for it states the same thing, "there were on the earth in those days...... when the sons of god came in unto the daughters of men. By this verse the nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with the daughters of men. In order for this to be different, you would have to rewrite the Bible, or change English language structure. So, remove the revised verse and the statement related to it or allow the changes I made. You are vile liar and despot that will not allow anything written by anyone else despite what is said on the Wikipedia homepage: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. By this you and your fellow staff members are liars and one who commit fraud. frauds Before you say that must be referenced, I did that by the Pulpit Bible Commentary and the King James Bible, both match that given in the version you gave, the only difference was that I wrote, and you did not. You stand by a outright lie, defying even your version and statement that goes against what is given in your reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017‎


 * Please note that Wikipedia cares about verifyability, not truth (WP:TRUTH). Also, the way it works is by selection and summarizing of reliable sources (WP:RS) and by consensus (WP:CONSENSUS).  I will leave a generic welcome message which includes more links on how Wikipedia works.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Signing Posts, Personal Attacks
When you write a post on a talk page at the end, please put four tildes as the end:. The computer will automatically translate this into a signature so that we can keep track of who is saying what. Also, please review the policy page WP:AGF. Wikipedia requires all editors, including me and you, to avoid making unfounded accusations about each other's motives. Alephb (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have any trouble figuring out how to sign your posts, please see the Wikipedia behavioral guideline WP:SIG. Hopefully it will help walk you through the process. 03:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk: Alephb. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Comparing my editing to rape is absolutely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Please refrain from posting personal attacks as per the Wikipedia policy WP:PERSONAL on my talk page.'' Alephb (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Attack
I guess to Wikipedia stating truth is an attack and agreeing with and bowing down to staff of Wikipedia is the desired response.

I stated that I was not insulting, but declaring some truths to in response to Alpehb's message desiring a response, which he did not like, nor other staff members, especially since all the declared lies, misinterpretations and bigotry against great literary works were treated as correct and condoned by Wikipedia by the lack of mention of Alpehb's outright lies, misinterpretations and bigotry against great literary works being wrong. The truths about the words used, (the lies, misinterpretations and bigotry against great literary works) were backed by concrete evidence given in Alpehb's statements to me, though he, and other Wikipedia staff members, may not like them, but are the truth and are fact coming from Alpeb himself, the truth is the truth.

His statements: 1. "Wikipedia requires all editors, including me and you, to avoid making unfounded accusations about each other's motives".

The word unfounded means without basis, or merit, and without evidence. To which I corrected that which he said, by showing the basis of my declarations about him.

2. "First, you're entirely using 19th-century sources. You've got your Wilson's (1850), the Pulpit Commentary, authored in various parts of the 19th century, and Strong's Concordance (1890)." Coupled with a past statement: "It's just another obscure 19th century book". This shows extreme bigotry classical literary works, like the Bible, the works of Josephus, Aquila, Socrates, and even Webster's Dictionary Of The English Language (1829)(by his statement "just another obscure 19th century book") I, also, stated: "Also, by this statement, many of the very books you would use ("Things that are peer-reviewed, come from university presses") could not be used for they use the an "obscure 19th century book", or older. Many professors refer to the works of Josephus, or Aquila, or Socrates, and much to your chagrin and dislike, works like Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, The Pulpit Bible Commentary (which is of the 1900's), and many other books written long ago, that you thumb your nose at." This backs the accusation of bigotry, and, as such he is a bigot against literary classics that are highly used as references by many universities and professors, besides scholars, and he only gives merit to the very recent works, all by his statement(I am stating fact, rather you want to consider it an attack, or what it really is fact, proof, based on his own statement). I, and many other teachers and professors, look to, use, and appreciate great literary classics of the past, and do not like people down grading them to useless and having no value which is implied in the word "obscure" and by the statement.

3. "Second, and much more seriously, you are misrepresenting at least one of your sources. The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979 (something I never stated, nor implied), no matter what the copyright (something he knows of, but not its use in a reference) notice might say. It was translated into English by 1857. And you are blatantly misquoting it. Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.", to which I stated: Gesenius' I did not state that it was written in 1979, rather that this is the publisher's copyright date. Do you not know reference data that is given that shows the reference. Things like the title, author, publisher, copyright date, and ISBN number if there is one? Though I did not state this infraction of his; "The Gesenius Lexicon is not from 1979, no matter what the copyright notice might say" he took out of context the reference data given and put his own twist to it by implying that I was saying it was written on that date, which I in no way did, and he needs to learn the proper reference data procedure used in universities: the title, author, publisher, copyright date, and ISBN number if there is one, and page number. By him not knowing this shows he is uneducated, or poorly educated.

Then, "And you are blatantly misquoting it (here is an attack on me, but that is alright by Wikipedia staff, besides a truly unfounded accusation by him) . Gesenius uses "fallers, rebels, apostates" to illustrate the view he does not hold. Gesenius himself prefers "giants." So you should not act as if Gesenius supports your view.", to which I responded: "Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures,(translated by) Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. LL. D, Baker Book House, 1979 (reprinted 1990), ISBN: 0-8010-3801-4, page 556 (for you first edition published by Samuel Bagster and Sons in 1847), you state that I am misrepresenting at least one of my sources, but I am not, rather it is you who is doing this to validate your lie. what is said: "(Hebrew spelling)m.giants Gen.6:4; Nu. 13:33. The etymology (since this word might be to big for you, it means, the history of the linguistic form of a word)of this word is uncertain..... I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu.(I add so you will know Aquila)(Greek spelling of word)falling on, attacking is of intransitive signification......... were accustomed to render (Hebrew word spelling) fallers, rebels, apostates (support of my view of no mention of giant in his preference). So, did Alephb not misinterpret, both me and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, and insert his own interpretation that was false to support his stance. As such Alpehb is a misinterpreter and liar for he inserted that which was never there in the first place(I am stating fact, rather you want to consider it an attack, or that I am lying and pulling it out of thin air, or what it really is truthful fact that I am stating based own Alpehb's own words).

Then I added a statement that both he and Wikipedia over looked: "All of this shows that which I stated was not unfounded, but based on, and proven, by your statements, unless you would like to add another falsehood like you did in my last statement. I, also, did not state these as an unfounded insult, but rather the truth based on your statements. You may not like the truth, but don't call it an insult, or unfounded; the truth is the truth, rather you like it, or not.", and by this I was stating that I was not insulting him, nor attacking him, but rather responding to his statements using his statements to prove that which I was stating (rather he, or the rest of Wikipedia, likes the truthful statements, or not).

I, also, gave a statement concerning the data that was given in an edit that was deleted. Which was: "Then, there is this, the verse that I gave stated the same thing as the version your article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humansThe Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version". The only thing different was the statement that I gave that the nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with the daughters of men, which is what both the version I used, and the version you used stated, and I backed with a reference source.

Then I stated: "The article statement was: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible.", which is a false statement. Unless you want to say that (example) that a woman you do not know today, but will in 10 years and then will be your first sex with her, today though, before she has met you, has your baby. For to go from the verse statement that there were nephilim already on the earth when the sons of god had sex with daughters of men, to the nephilim being the offspring of this union, is no different then the example given. For Wikipedia's statement: were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men", when the quoted Bible verse (even the Wikipedia quote) states: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, contradicts your statement and is a misinterpretation: just like your misinterpretation of Gesenius' Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament Scriptures (although I do not believe it was an error, rather a deliberate misinterpretation).

"Unless Wikipedia staff would like rewrite the Bible, Wikipedia would have to delete the Bible quote. Then if you deleted the quote, then your statement would have no ground on which to stand and would have to be deleted as well. Or Wikipedia would have to confess to putting false statements into their articles and leave it stand as it is."

Simply put, if my statement was deleted when it matched what the quoted verse stated (even the article's quoted verse), then the statement that is in the article, that does not match the verse quoted, should also be deleted. And if it is not deleted, while that which matches the quoted verse is deleted, then it shows that Wikipedia staff members stand for, and include in, their articles false statements.

Again I am not giving unfounded insults, or lies, but true facts based on the evidence presented and a response to a message wanting a response using truthful facts based on evidence provided by the party sending the message, rather Wikipedia likes it, or not. And no action against me, or threats, will change this truth. It is what it is, the truth, rather Wikipedia staff likes it, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017‎


 * I am not a Wikipedia staff member. Please cease making personal attacks against me. I've included a warning, below, with links to the policy pages that prohibit these attacks. Alephb (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:24.253.207.96. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''As I've attempted to explain more than, personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia as per the policies WP:PERSONAL, and the related policy WP:AGF. In the latest post on your User Talk page, your most recent personal attack includes the terms "bigotry," "outright lies," "extreme bigotry," "he is uneducated, or poorly educated," "Alephb is a misinterpreter and liar." This tone is inappropriate for the collegial atmosphere sought on Wikipedia.'' Alephb (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Paleo Neonate  – 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)