Brad Watson, Miami

copied from 'God' talk page

When anyone translates any Arabic into English, then Allah should be replaced with 'GOD'. Therefore, the Qur'an quotes should read: "The Messenger of GOD (PBUH) said, 'GOD said...", "The Prophet Muhammad said, GOD says...", and "Do not curse time, as GOD is time." Note that when one exposes Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74), GOD=7_4, Muhammad = 74 = M13+U21+H8+A1+M13+M13+A1+D4, time = 47. Also, Arabic = 34 = A1+R18+A1+B2+I9+C3 and Allah = 34 (One[34], Lord[34]). The primary rule of Step 2 of all gematrias is "Numerical values corresponding to the individual letters in a word (/name) or phrase are added together and relationships are inferred between(74) that word (/name) or phrase and other words (/names) or phrases whose letters add up to the same numerical value." [ref]The Alphabet That Changed The World p. 343, Stan Tenen (North Atlantic Books, 2011)[/ref]. Note that Step 1 of all gematrias is simply counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and that having symbolic meaning and connect(7,74)ions, i.e. 'GOD' is three letters and in Christianity represents the Holy(4) Trinity(7) of Father, Son, and Sophia (wisdom) or Holy Spirit. E PLURIBUS UNUM ("Out of Many, One") is 13 letters and is used on the Great Seal of the United States and US currency because of its symbolic reference to the Original 13 Colonies/States, etc. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Every article has a history tab where you can go back and look at all previous versions of the article (for Ordo Ad Chao it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ordo_Ad_Chao&action=history ). For images on Wikipedia, the file name must match what is calling the image. When you capitalized the name of the image, it confused the computer. If you have any further questions about how to use Wikipedia, make sure to ask individuals at WP:Teahouse

Sadads (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 

Hello, Brad Watson, Miami. You have new messages at Talk:Number of the Beast.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Biblical Hurricane and Tornado

I added the following to Burning of Washington... Less than a day after the attack began, a powerful hurricane suddenly appeared and its heavy thunderstorms put out most the fires.[ref>The War of 1812, Scene 5 'An Act of Nature', History Channel, 2005,[/ref> It also spun off a tornado that sheered through the center of the capital that killed and injured more British troops than did the Americans. The tornado tossed cannons into the air and spooked the British soldiers, including their officers. After the storm cleared, the battered and bewildered British troops returned to their ships, many of which were badly damaged. The occupation of Washington had lasted only about 26 hours. The Royal Navy reported that in the attack, it lost one man killed and six wounded, of whom the fatality and three of the wounded were from the Corps of Colonial Marines.[ref>"No. 16939". The London Gazette. September 27, 1814.[/ref>

Hi Brad,
I removed the section you added because it was adding an unnecessary slant to the article both in the naming of the new section and the description of the British troops return to their ships. Unless there's a reference to the storm in a particular book of the Old or New Testament, your heading by implication invokes an intervention by the Almighty on behalf of the States. This opens a can of opinionated worms to say the least as virtually every combatant in every war has claimed the Almighty as a backer. Also, your changed link is less accessible (and has a potential for hyperbole) than the one that existed. Natty10000 | Natter  13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Natter,

Your action is unacceptable! One of the definitions of 'biblical' is any significant event that shows God's involvement and is comparable to a significant event(s) from the Bible. Your comment, "Unless there's a reference to the storm in a particular book of the Old or New Testament" is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever encountered from someone who places themself in a scholar's position of authority! A hurricane suddenly appeared that put the Washington fires out and a tornado came down Constitution Ave that killed and injured British troops, flung cannons into the air, and ultimately drove the British out of the US Capital without any US troop actions. There certainly was "an interventiontion by the Almighty on behalf of the States" and this was a quote by the Mayor of Baltimore in the History Channel program/DVD. I quoted a very reliable source that has reached thousands, if not millions of people. Your actions appear to have an anti-God agenda and were very wrong. You should regret your actions and change it back! - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Note of synchronism: Right after posting this, a very strong thunderstorm suddenly struck my neighborhood! - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Brad, The Mayor of Baltimore and you are welcome to your opinions. But the operative word there is "opinions". Bear in mind that as much as topics permit, Wikipedia is concerned with fact and as such tries to maintain a reasoned balance, a balance that is neither pro nor anti (ie God for one example or the U.S. for another). Nobody was disputing that the storms happened. Where things veer off into the bushes is when the intervention of the Almighty is invoked as having favoured one side or another (or by a Wiki editor such as yourself) in a conflict. As such, it has no business here.

One other thing? The name's Natty10000 not Natter. The "Natter" component links to my user talk page and is a modification of the "(talk)" hyperlink component of my sig. Your misunderstanding seems to have come about as a result of you stripping-out Wiki mark-up code instead of just doing a proper cut-and-paste (likewise evidenced by ""interventiontion"".

That said, I'll delete this conversation from the article's talk page and return it to where it began on your user talk page later today (as long as that doesn't contravene a Wiki rule)  Natty10000 | Natter  14:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven Archangels: talk

Angels Lucifer is also an ArchAngel.

No, Lucifer WAS an Archangel. According to Christianity, when he was cast out of Heaven he lost that title, as he no longer serves God. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. First, don't confuse the heavens: sky, low-earth-orbit, our solar system, deep space with heaven: an ideal frame-of-mind where one is close to God and family, and feels like they're in a paradise setting within space and time. Second, Lucifer or Luciferous is Latin for 'light bearer' or Morning Star/Evening Star which is the Planet Venus. In the Latin Vulgate, the Book of Isaiah describes the Morning Star as "Lucifer". In The Revelation, Jesus is described as the Morning(7 letters) Star(4). The Freemasonry/Masonic(7,74=M13+A1+S19+O15+N14+I9+C3) Code(4) of Lucifer(74=L12+U21+C3+I9+F6+E5+R18) and Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) is produced through Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74). The Roman Catholic Church has historically attacked all Paganism and ancient mysteries. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

1 Royal cubit = 7 palms x 4 fingers = 28 fingers (Ancient Egyptian units of measurement)

From Ancient Egyptian units of measurement... A Standard cubit/Biblical cubit is the measurement of everyone's forearm from the elbow to the tip of your middle finger. Everyone's standard cubit is 6 palms x 4 fingers. The exact measurement of the standard cubit came from the measurement of the pharoah's cubit. The ancient Egyptians practiced sacred geometry with its premise "As above, so below."/"On Earth as it is in the heavens." Because the Egyptians observed 7 moving objects in the heavens and 4 don't cast shadows on Earth, as well as the lunar months being rounded off to 4 7-day weeks (7.4 days), and the lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = solar year, the Egyptians added a palm to the standard/Biblical cubit to produce 1 Royal cubit = 7 palms x 4 fingers. Notice that by using Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74), GOD=7_4 with G the 7th letter, a circle can be 15 or zerO, and D is 4. 'The key'= 74=T20+H8+E5+K11+E5+Y25. cubits=74=C3+U21+B2+I9+T20+S19. heavens=74=H8+E5+A1+V22+E5+N14+S19. objects=74, shadows=74, months=74. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hermeneutics + Gematria

I added the following to the Hermeneutics... ==Gematria== The Kaballists have always taught Hebrew & Aramaic Gematria: the alphanumeric code/cipher used to encode scripture with added meaning. The New Testament was encoded with Greek isopsephy (gematria)<ref]Gematria - The Numbers of Infinity by Marke Pawson (Green Magic, 2004)</ref]<ref]Magdalene's Lost Legacy (symbolic numbers and the sacred union in Christianity) by Margaret Starbird (Bear & Company, 2003)</ref]. Freemasonry and the Grand Master Mason King James I and his 47 experts<ref]The Bible (KJV) p. xii of Introduction (Penguin Classics, 2006),</ref] encoded his Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version of the Bible with Simple English Gematria. Rosicrucians also practiced gematria. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ian Thomson, you are NOT my supervisor, nor are you qualified to edit any articles on Wikipedia!

Ian.thomson STOP! Articles on Wikipedia are not up to you to decide what is "fringe material" and what are "majority viewpoints". You've proven time-and-again that although anyone with a computer and Internet access can edit Wikipedia, the content in the articles is best provided by experts in the field - which I AM and you certainly are NOT!! If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (This discussion is continued on http://7seals.yuku.com ) - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPOV and WP:CITE are site policies, and WP:FRINGE and WP:RS are site guidelines, all of which you have failed to comply with time and time again. Those are not things I've made up, they're a social contract that every editor here is bound to to keep insane superstition from mucking up the site. Even if you really believe you're the reincarnation of Jesus and Einstein, you won't be the first messiah claimant we've blocked. The real Christ would know how to cite reliable sources. If you don't believe me, I guarantee the administrators will set you straight. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian Thomson(74=T20+H8+O+M13+S19+O+N14), you have now made your agenda very clear. First, to insinuate that I have claimed to be the Messiah(74=M13+E5+S19+S19+I9+A1+H8) on Wikipedia is, of course, a lie! And your accusing me of not knowing "how to cite reliable sources" is clearly another lie since your last removal of one of my edits was in regards to Kebra Nagast where you didn't like the very legitimate resource I gave of the published book. I reported your many anti-scholarly and harrassing actions to the administrators this morning. (The rest of this discussion can be found on http://7seals.yuku.com ) - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All the other editors at Talk:Kebra Nagast thought you were being spammy with that book too. We have dozens of free books listed at Kebra Nagast, and you linked one that costs money. I see no report, do you know where the administrators noticeboard board is? You should now. I welcome drawing admin attention to your continual WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. And when are you going to get it through your head that no one cares about your ---* site? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, those are all lies! What "all the other editors"? You deleted the refenced source and my improved explanation before anyone else even saw it! "Spammy"? That's another lie and indicates you don't even know the definition of 'spam'. You will try using any reason to support your lies. There are not "dozens of free books listed at Kebra Nagast" - that's yet another lie! There are a couple listed and I added another reliable source which you deleted along with other preferential wording of mine. As I've asked you before, do you delete all books that are for sale when there are free ones available, or only the one I provided? Are you an expert on the Kebra Nagast? Have you even read it? Are you familiar with the published version I gave and its differences with the others? No. But you don't care about that kind of scholarly approach, you've got your agenda and you will interpret the rules of Wikipedia however you see fit because you bully others or at least try to. You constantly provide rude and insulting remarks about my comments and me personally along with the occasional vulgarity, although you are well aware that this is clearly against the rules here, is the poorest type of scholarly debate possible, and is an example of the exact opposite of how a Christian/godly person should act. Since you yourself have gone on my forum, you've lied once again about "no one cares about your --- site". Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74): GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April Good Friday has received over 7,400 views. It seems all you do is lie to support your agenda. Of course, you have alot of company. I, however, can say with utmost certainty that I have never lied in my many years of editing Wikipedia articles and promise never to in the future. (*Note that I deleted your vulgarity from the above post.) As I logged onto Wiki this morning, I was greeted by the administrators asking me how my experience as an editor here is? I replied with the truth. Keep in mind, "we are all judged according(74) to our actions". Let the record show I have taken the time(47) to try and save(47) you from yourself. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Kebra Nagast. Dougweller says that your book link was promotional. The version you linked to was a for-profit printing of a public domain translation, which was freely available at the bottom of the page. The only purpose to link to it would be to increase sales for that site, because the work was already available. At any rate:

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reporting myself on behalf of Brad Watson, Miami. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, when you said, "The only purpose to link to it would be to increase sales for that site" is a lie! Your lies are constant and predictable. I had just bought the book and had never heard of the publishers before. But I was aware there might be different material in the introduction, summary, etc. that might not appear elsewhere. I listed the source I used for my editing in the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. I'll repeat my previous message that you ignored, Keep in mind, "we are all judged according(74) to our actions". Let the record show I took the time(47) to try and save(47) you from yourself. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cubit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fingers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

'Burning bush' - use of 'YHWH' vs. 'Yahweh'/'Jehovah'/'Yehowah'

Use of 'YHWH' vs. 'Yahweh'/'Jehovah'/'Yehowah', etc. "In the narrative, an angel of YHWH is described as appearing in the bush,[6] and God is subsequently described as calling out from it to Moses, who had been grazing Jethro's flocks there." I replaced the first use of 'Yahweh' with 'YHWH': the tetragrammaton. Whether 'Yahweh'(6 letters,70=Y25+A1+H8+W23+E5+H8), 'Jehovah'(7,54/69), or 'Yehowah'(7,70/85) is correct is up for debate. Right now, the rest of the paragraph is full of 'Yahweh' and no use of 'God'. Is this because the editors of this article are Jewish and want the 'One God' to belong to the ancient Israelites? Christian editors would not only use YHWH & Yahweh. I realize that everyone has an agenda. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Doug, hello. "An issue with which you may have been involved"? Really?! It's your actions that are being judged, Doug. See http://7seals.yuku.com . Thank you. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To the administrators of Wikipedia,

Ian Thomson says, "I'll file on his behalf" and you accept that? Then you block me based on his many lies and the lies of others, i.e Doug Weller? Wow! I have never lied on Wikipedia. I have tried my best to voluntarily spread knowledge and important information here to the best of my ability. I will not bother to "appeal this block". The good news/sign from GOD is now I can use the time I would have spent on Wikipedia for more important things. I leave everyone with two quotes...

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

"Everyone is judged according to your actions" - 25 times in the Bible.

- Brad Watson, Miami

I did file on your behalf, and you can find the original report here. I was asked reformat the report to be against you, because I'm actually innocent here. You said you filed a report, which was a lie. Had you not lied (either by not saying you filed a report, or by having actually filed a report), you'd... actually, you'd still probably be blocked.

I linked to your unedited posts, as they were made. They were your actions. Everyone agreed that you totally refused to even try to understand how this site's policies on neutrality and sourcing work. Everyone, who came in assuming good faith agreed you were in the wrong and could find nothing to defend you. The only thing people disagreed on was whether you should be topic-banned from religion edits, or just blocked.

If you can't understand that, you're either willfully ignorant, or totally lacking in the basic wisdom to understand your situation. Either way, until that problem is fixed, you're not welcome here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Brad, is there an unblock request or appeal in our future? Because if there isn't, I'm going to revoke your access to this page. I don't particularly want to do that, but it seems clear that you're only using your talk page to continue to vent and fume and antagonize others. It would be better for all involved if you didn't do that. --Jayron32 19:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, yes, there is an unblock request right now. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, you have lied by saying that I lied about filing a report. I explained this to you once - I replied to a box that came across my screen asking how my experience is here as an editor and I reported you. That's the simple truth. You dare to speak for "everyone" as you continue to attack me even after you got me banned - what a bully! It would be against the rules of Wikipedia for GOD and I to judge you here, so we won't. But your judgment can be found at http://7seals.yuku.com . - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are filing an unblock request, please use the template described above. And when you do so, please don't cast aspersions against others. It isn't particularly useful to tell other editors, obliquely, what their state in the afterlife is going to be based on a brief online interaction with them. Instead, use the {{unblock}} as described above, and in your request to be unblocked, give a clear indication of what changes you are going to make to your own behavior. That's the way forward here. --Jayron32 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE unblock this guy, I want to hear what he has to say27.33.123.141 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked, with talk page access removed

Based on this comment here: [1] which I just warned you to stop doing, I am revoking your talk page access. If you wish to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee. --Jayron32 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)