GA TCG comprehensive rules states Imbue as :

1. Imbue is an[sic] static ability which means, “You may reserve all cards revealed as you activate this card. If at least N of them are , this card becomes imbued." 

With the way it is templated, it clearly states that there are cards already revealed as you activate a card with imbue. When is that? cause when you activate a card, you pay the reserve cost by placing X amount of cards face down in the memory zone, correct?:
From Grand Archive TCG Comprehensive Rules: Parts of a Card - Cost

To pay for a reserve cost, select X other cards from your hand where X is the cost required to activate the desired card and place them into your Memory zone face-down. 

There is nothing revealed, right?
Is the revealing of cards with imbue like an "additional cost"? So aside from paying the reserve cost, you also reveal cards as you activate a card with imbue?
(Also, I just want to point this out in case someone from Weebs of the Shore is reading this: As I was researching this imbue keyword, I spent a lot of time reading the comprehensive rules, and, oh boy, the comprehensive rules is not beginner friendly to say the least >_<)
EDIT: SOLVED! thanks to u/LoneWolfik. Apparently, I am interpreting the word "revealed" in the Imbue rules text as a verb, when it is actually an adjective. lol. Still, the mere fact that I created this post means that the wording is confusing. Hope this post will help future players that are confused like me about the Imbue keyword.

Below you will find a weekly reminder of our Rules and partial FAQ. It's definitely a long read, but it's worth your time, especially if you are new to the community, or dropping by as a result of a link you found elsewhere. We periodically revise our rules, this weekly notice will help keep you informed of any changes made.
NOTE: These rules are guidelines. Some moderation discretion is to be expected.

Community Rules

1. Kindness Matters

Advise, don't criticize.

• Post with empathy, thoughtfulness, and constructive commentary rather than judgment. Don't be an asshole.
• Name-calling, slurs (including gender or race based slurs), and insults towards other community members will not be tolerated. Do not attack others for their personally held values, custody situation, marital status, physical distance from stepkids, or economic status; or on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, or ethnicity.
• No name-calling toward children, including the above-mentioned insults or the term "skids", or terms such as "mini-wife" or "mini-husband."
• Comments advocating spanking or any mention of wanting to harm children are not allowed.
• This is a support sub, not a judgement sub, assholes are not tolerated. Comments with terms used in other subs to pass judgement on assholes will be removed.

2. No Drama

This is a support sub.

• Bickering, nitpicking, and thread derailment will not be tolerated and will be subject to removal at moderator discretion.
• Do not repeatedly badger a poster demanding answers, or refuse to acknowledge an answer that's already been given.
• Do not use sensitive issues from past posts (either from this sub or other subs) to attack another user, as we are all discussing vulnerable topics.
• Crossposting anything from /stepparents to any other subreddit might result in a ban and may result in the original thread being locked. Brigading our sub will result in an immediate ban.

3. Report, Don’t Rant

No backseat modding.

• If you see someone breaking the rules, report the post or comment to the mods rather than engaging them in an argument. Failure to do so may be subject to comment removal at moderator discretion.
• No meta posts complaining about rude comments, DMs, or general sub issues.
• If you think someone is a troll or previously banned user, either use the report function or message the mods to direct their attention to the issue.

4. No Naming & Shaming

No userpings or links.

• Tagging/pinging users or other subreddits in an attempt to bully, harass, or complain will not be tolerated. Do not tag other subs, ever.
• If you want to complain about another subreddit being hostile to stepparents, do not name the subreddit. "Other parenting/advice/judgement subs" will suffice.

5. No Platitudes

Nobody knew what they were getting into.

• Comments like "You knew what you were getting into", "Love them, love their kids!", "They're a package deal!" and "You have to love them like your own!" will be removed.
• Comments suggesting that OP is not cut out for stepparenting will be removed at moderator discretion.
• Comments like "This is just a part of parenting, deal with it!" will be removed at moderator discretion.

6. No Trolling

We have zero tolerance for trolls.

• This is a support sub. Our subscribers do not have the time, nor inclination, to provide support to internet trolls. Posts that are suspected to be trolling attempts will be immediately removed, and the poster banned.
• Concern trolling, devil's advocating, gish-galloping, sealioning, and general asshattery are subject to immediate removal and banning without warning or notice.
• Any attempt to circumvent the ban by creating a new username will be reported to reddit admins and possibly result in account suspension.

7. No Personally Identifiable Information

Use discretion when posting.

• We highly recommend using a separate account for support subs to help prevent being doxxed. Do not post any information that may allow others to figure out your identity.
• Do not post photos of children, or any other photo that could be used to identify you or another user on the sub.
• Any image that contains a name or other identifying information should have the name or identifying information blurred out. This includes drawings, notes, and screenshots.
• Do not link to social media or any articles/blogs where you or another user on the sub is mentioned by name.

8. No More than 2 Posts per 24 hours

Use the daily threads.

• We are not a huge sub, but we are no longer a small sub. If you have multiple grievances to air, use the daily discussion threads instead of multiple posts.

9. Follow Reddiquette

Remember the human.

• Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life.
• Read it in full here.
• Downvoting is reserved for comments that don’t contribute, and shouldn't be used to indicate disagreement.
• If you believe someone is in violation of the subreddit rules, please either use the report function or message the mods to direct their attention to the issue.
• Suspected brigading will be reported to reddit admins.

10. No Porn, Spam, Blogs, or Research Studies/Surveys Without Mod Approval

Just don't.

• This is a SFW subreddit. Posting pornography will result in immediate post removal and permanent ban.
• Advertising on the subreddit (outside of Reddit's own advertising) is not allowed.
• No personal blog posts are allowed without express moderator permission.
• No advertising without prior mod approval.
• No asking for money/posting fundraisers/etc.
• For links to parenting research studies or surveys, please message the mods for permission before posting.

11. Disputes in Modmail Only

Don't argue with the mods on the sub.

• Any issues specifically related to how a mod is moderating should be addressed to the full moderating team via mod mail. This ensures that all mods are aware of any concerns and prevents disintegration of the topic thread at hand.
• This means to do not message or send chat requests to individual mods. All discussion and complaints about mod actions need to be done in mod mail ONLY. Failure to follow this rule can result in an immediate permanent ban.
• Comments in threads asking about mod decisions are subject to removal without notice.

12. Moderator Actions

We aren't kidding.

• Users are expected to know the rules before posting. If you are warned or banned for violating the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.
• Moderators will remove posts and comments and/or lock threads in accordance with the rules above. Typically this happens when threads have gone off-topic in a way that is not productive for the OP, or comments overall have become contentious or disrespectful.
• If a poster continues to argue or to willfully violate these rules, temporary and permanent ban procedures will be followed. Any attempts to avoid or bypass temporary bans will result in a permanent ban. User bans will not be discussed in the sub. Questions posted about user bans are subject to removal and the poster subject to warning/ban procedures. The mod team will not discuss a specific user ban with anyone other than the user involved.
• New accounts are subject to manual approval until they are no longer deemed "new" by the mod team. This helps to weed out trolls and ban evaders.
• We rely on Automoderator to scan for specific words and phrases that are not welcome here and notify the mod team to review the comment or post. This includes slurs of any type and platitudes such as "Love them as your own!"
• The mod team uses a combination of blacklisting and banning when dealing with trolls.
• We employ the use of a bot that automatically bans anyone who comments in subs that have historically harassed our users. If you are picked up by the bot for telling trolls to get fucked, reach out via mod mail and we'll get you sorted out.
• The rules above as well as ban procedures are considered guidelines only; some deviation may be necessary on a case by case basis and/or at the mod team's discretion.

13. Ban Procedure

These actions are at moderator discretion.

• Pornography will result in an automatic permanent ban.
• Extremely egregious content will result in an immediate permanent ban.
• You may receive a 7 or 30 day temporary ban for first and second rule violations, depending upon severity.
• Continued rule violations will result in a permanent ban.
• Willful attempts to avoid or bypass temporary bans will result in a permanent ban.
• We recognize the reddit site-wide rules of using alt names to get around bans and will ban those as well as report them to reddit admins.

​
​

FAQ - About the Rules

What does Kindness Matters mean?

• Shortest version? Don't be an asshole. People come here for support and advice, they do not come here to be yelled at or told they are the reason everything is going sideways. There are ways to point out that someone may want to do some reflection on their own actions and reactions without being an asshole about it.
• The purpose of this subreddit is to provide support and a sense of belonging for struggling stepparents. We aren't here to pass judgement, but rather to offer support, empathy, and constructive commentary. That does not include "hard truths" or "tough love." Stepparents get enough of that in every other subreddit, we're not passing it out here. Be respectful.
• Remember, most people aren't going to come to a sub like this when everything is going great and everyone is getting along. People are coming here when they are down, when they are feeling defeated and stretched to the limit. Kicking someone when they are down is shitty behavior and we don't tolerate it.

What about being kind to the kids?

• "Won't somebody think of the children?" Pearl clutching isn't needed here. If you read the Kindness Matters rule closely, you will see that there is a clause in there about name calling children. We don't allow it. We also don't allow people rolling in telling OP that they feel sorry for their stepkids because OP is feeling overwhelmed and overloaded.
• If anyone is advocating slapping, spanking, or any other form of violence, report the comment immediately. We do not advocate violence towards children of any sort. The mod team does not advocate any sort of physical punishment at any time.
• Venting about behaviors is not the same as insulting the kids. However, if you see a post or comment where kids are being name called or dragged to the point of no return, use the report button. We try to catch the posts and remove them before they hit the sub, but we cannot see every comment without your help. Use the report button to bring problematic comments to our attention. Don't engage in a war of words on our subreddit.

Why is this sub such an echo chamber?

• Not allowing contributors to pile on and tell OP that they are a terrible human being who should never be around children does not equate to being an echo chamber. Many contributors here will offer OP suggestions to help them work through their resentments and frustrations, and the most egregious situations are called out. We simply ask that it be called out with respect.
• If you feel that a post is simply too much for you to handle without following the rules, move on to another post.
• If you believe that a post itself is crossing the rules report it. If the mod team has approved the post, it is because the mod team believes that the OP needs help from the community or needs a moment to vent and move on from their vent. That does not give you license to pile on disrespectfully. Unless it is proven that OP is a bot, assume that OP is a human being with real thoughts and feelings and has posted from a place of vulnerability.

Why can't I tell OP that they are an asshole?

• Because this isn't a judgement sub. We aren't AITA, we don't want to be AITA.
• Comments with terms like YTA, NTA, ESH, NAH will be removed.
• Don't start your posts with INFO either. We generally recognize that as a fishing attempt for more information to pass judgement on OP, and again, we are not a judgment sub.

But OP asked if they were an asshole?!

• Their post somehow got past our automoderator. Just use the report button. We will address it with OP.
• If you've asked if you are an asshole, a-hole, a*hole, a**hole, whatever, don't be surprised if your post is removed without warning. This isn't a judgment sub. If you want judgment, you know where to go.

What is a gendered slur?

• While it seems that everyone understands what racist slurs are, people struggle understanding the concept of gendered slurs. Generally speaking, we are talking about derogatory nouns or verbs that are used to negatively describe people or situations based on gendered terms.
• We've gone back and forth on this a few times, and the truth is, we get it, it's your safe space and you want to be able to vent about BM/BD how you want to vent about them, without us telling you how to vent about them. Fair enough. Vent away. What we are going to stick to here how people are referring to other users and to stepchildren.
• Examples that are not allowed:
  • "My SD is such a little bitch."
  • "She dresses/acts like a slut."
  • "My SS acts like a pussy."
  • "My SS is such a beta male."
  • "You are all fucking whores."
  • "Any dude who is raising some sluts kids is a cuck!"
  • "Little Lord Fauntleroy over here thinking he runs the house!"
  • "You're just the bangnanny, get used to it."
• Don't call users here names, don't call stepchildren names.
• Masking the term with asterisks or other neat little tricks might get you around the bot, but if we see it, we're removing it and quite possibly giving you a time out. The intended word is still there and you deliberately tried to skate the rule.
• As there is not enough space to list every term that is offensive and does not belong, nor every situation in which term or phrase may be allowable in context, this rule is enforced based on moderator discretion.

Seriously? You are the language police now?

• We're here to talk about stepparenting. And we would like for that to happen in a respectful way. Attacking each other doesn't help. Belittling stepchildren draws in trolls who don't understand your frustration, all they see is an evil stepmonster talking shit on the internet about a poor, innocent baby. Yes, even if that "poor, innocent baby" just robbed you blind and set fire to the house on their way out the door. That's just how it goes.
• We are aware that this is a relatively new rule and a lot of older posts and comments contain a lot of problematic language, including some from mods themselves. We are growing and evolving, and rules change as the sub grows and evolves.

What does No Drama really mean?

• Pretty much what it says, do not bring drama from other subs into this sub. Do not engage in vote brigades. Do not try to incite other subscribers to riot in a different sub. Don't follow posters into this sub from other subs to continue to harass them. Do not badger someone or derail threads. Do not harass community members because you don't agree with them. There's enough drama in the daily lives of subscribers, more isn't needed.

What is thread derailment?

• When a comment chain has devolved to the point where all you are doing is arguing back and forth with someone about the same thing over and over again, you have derailed the thread. Also known as bickering. It's what children do. We assume if people are in a stepparent role they are adults. We expect you to act like it.
• If you aren't a stepparent, or in a stepparenting role, consider that perhaps this subreddit isn't for you. If you want to participate, do so with respect. Thread derailment, arguing, bickering, and nitpicking are not allowed.

But what if they didn't answer my question?

• No one has to answer your questions. This is a support sub, not an inquisition. Jumping on a bandwagon with "OP is evading the question" in a 20 comment long chain is the epitome of thread derailment. You'll find more information about trolling below and how this might be considered such.

Why am I being silenced? I'm just asking for a back and forth!

• Thread derailment, badgering, and nitpicking are considered harassment. Continued harassment of either community members or mods will get you banned.

Why can't I look at someone's post history and comment about it?

• No mod in the history of this sub has ever once said post histories are forbidden. What we do frown upon is using someone's post history to attack, belittle, or otherwise harass someone.
• Example Post: "My stepkid's mom really hates me. How can I make this better?"
  • Okay: "Based on the timeline and your post history, it looks like this may have started as an affair. Unfortunately there's going to be outstanding issues for a long time due to that. Try focusing on yourself and how you can move forward without worrying about how someone else feels about you."
  • Not Okay: "Holy shit! You were the OW! What the hell do you expect, homewrecker?!"
• Example Post: "I am completely overloaded and feeling very down about myself."
  • Okay: "In your post history you mentioned that your spouse wasn't really helping around the house. Has that changed at all?"
  • Not Okay: "LOL, you already got the answers you need in your post on relationships. You are stupid for sticking with your lazy spouse."

Why can't we crosspost stuff to other subs?

• We can't stop you from doing so. The problem isn't that something has been crossposted, it's when the community that it's been crossposted to feels the need to come over here and harass OP. When we see that happening, we lock the post and start passing out bans. If you did the crossposting, you'll be banned. If you participated in the brigading, you'll be banned.

What if it's my own post?

• Again, we can't stop you from doing so. We prefer that you don't technically crosspost, but rather just copy and paste your post. Why? Because inevitably the above will happen. Redditors from other subs will follow you back to /stepparents and start attacking users here. It just happens.

What is "brigading"?

• Reddit defines vote manipulation and brigading as follows:
• Using multiple accounts, voting services, or any other software to increase or decrease vote scores.
• Asking people to vote up or down certain posts, either on Reddit itself or through social networks, messaging, etc. for personal gain.
• Forming or joining a group that votes together, either on a specific post, a user's posts, posts from a domain, etc.
• We, along with pretty much every other subreddit that has ever had to deal with this nonsense, further define brigading as this: You saw a post on another sub that linked to our sub either via a link in a comment or a crosspost. It was basically saying something along the lines of "OMG, check out these assholes over on /stepparents! They literally hate all their stepkids!" And then you and your friends come over and start hammering on OP and telling OP how much they suck. Congrats, you have just participated in a brigade.

What is this whole Report, Don't Rant thing about?

• If you see a post or comment that breaks the rules, instead of engaging, report it. When you report it, it sends notification to the mod team. We will act on it where appropriate. Engaging with bad faith users may result in your comments being removed. If you repeatedly do so, you may end up being banned.

What if I see an obvious troll?

• Report it.

What if they are being really mean in comments?

• Report it.

What if they are harassing me in private messages?

• Step 1: Report them to admins. You can report harassment to reddit by using this link or send a DM to reddit admins. Include the link to the DM, admins can see your inbox and providing a direct link is helpful for them to weed out bad actors.
• Step 2: Block the person so they cannot directly contact you again.
• Step 3: Send us a mod mail and let the mod team know. Tell us who they are and what they said, send us a screenshot if you can - admins can see your DMs, mods can't. We'll take action where necessary by banning from the sub if they aren't already banned.

What do you mean by No Naming & Shaming?

• Just as we prefer to not be linked to or crossposted from, we do not allow linking to or calling out other subs by name. If you see something you want to share, say it's a hot post that has hit the front page and a stepparent is being absolutely flayed, just refer to it as "that hot post that hit the front page." If you want to complain about other places in general, "other parenting/advice/judgement subs" will suffice. Absolutely under no circumstances should you link to anywhere else.

I can't link to other subs?

• Do not directly link to another sub. (e.g.: "/insertsubnamehere is ridiculously hostile to stepparents!")
• Do not name other subs. (e.g.: "I won't link to it directly, but insertsubnamehere is ridiculously hostile to stepparents!")
• Do not abbreviate other subs. (e.g.: "I know that ISNH is ridiculously hostile to stepparents!")

I can't ping other users?

• Do not summon another user with a username ping/tag. (e.g.: "insertusernamehere was being an asshole.")
• If you are agreeing with someone, it is okay to link to them. (e.g.: "I agree with insertusernamehere, you need to take a couple of steps back and reflect on this.")

What does No Platitudes mean?

• Sanctimonious, overused clichés that grossly oversimplify the stepparenting experience are neither wanted nor allowed here. We have all heard it a thousand times before, we don't need to hear it again. It's not nearly as insightful and wise as some would like to think.

Why don't you people understand it's a package deal?

• Any comment that suggests that OP should have known what they were getting involved with, or that they needed to understand that the kids were part of some package they needed to accept before signing up for marriage is subject to immediate removal.
• This is one of the most insensitive things you can say to a stepparent. Most stepparents were aware of the children, but they were probably not aware of all of the family dynamics.

Why can't you just love them like they are your own?

• Demanding that a stranger you do not know love children that are not biologically theirs as if they were theirs can be incredibly damaging to someone who is already in a vulnerable situation. Any comment that falls along these lines will be removed.

What do you mean by No Trolling? I was just...

• No means no. No trolling. No pretending to be a stepparent and then whipping out the Greatest Hits Bingo Card of The Worst Stepparent in the History of Stepparents. We see you. We've seen you a thousand times.

What does "concern trolling", "gish-galloping", and "sealioning" have to do with stepparenting? This isn't a debate sub, why are you using debate terms?

• That's absolutely right, this isn't a debate sub. And yet, here we are, day after day, having to defend ourselves against this sort of thing. So, enough. No more. Usage of any of these things will get you banned.

What is "Concern Trolling?"

• A concern troll is someone who disingenuously visits sites of an opposing ideology to disrupt conversation by offering unwanted advice on how to solve problems which do not really exist.
  • Example Post: OP expresses concern that she will feel, and possibly act, differently towards her stepchildren after her husband decides that no, he doesn't want anymore children after all.
  • Example Concern Troll pulled from actual mod mail after their comment was removed: "Possible child abuse claims need to be sorted out well before whatever empathy you believe the OP was looking for."

What is a "Devil's Advocate"?

• "I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but have you considered that maybe BM is just really tired and needs a break, too?" BM has dozens of different mom based subs alone on reddit she can complain on, this sub is for stepparents. The stepparent doesn't need to consider that maybe BM is just really tired and needs a break.

"Gish-galloping?" What does that even mean?

• The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop.

And "sealioning?" What's that?

• Sealioning involves jumping into a conversation with endless polite, reasonable questions and demands for answers, usually of entry-level topics far below the actual conversation (e.g. "please prove sexism exists"). This tactic differs little from harassment; instead of discussion, the point is to derail discussion, receive criticism (for their ignorance) so as to look like a victim, or to make someone feel overwhelmed and quit talking.

Who gets to define what is considered asshattery?

• The mod team, of course! If we feel that comments are out of line, are trolling, are leading up to a fight or "just asking questions", we are going to remove them and most likely ban the offender.

​
​

FAQ - Sub Questions

Posting Guidelines for Stepparents

• Body text is required, we suggest you use line breaks between paragraphs as a wall of text is difficult to read. Posts that have only a title are likely to be removed. Instead of using names (even fictitious ones), try to use the sub acronyms. It helps our users to follow along if you use the acronyms and not names.
• Assign a post flair that accurately describes what your post is about and what you are seeking. If you are posting an update from a previous post, include a link to that post.
• Flairs are applied to posts to determine what a person is looking for. When submitting a new post, you should choose a flair that specifies if you are looking for advice, support, etc. The following link flair is available and is color coded with side bar links so that you can search by flair:
  • Advice - For when you are specifically asking for advice or help.
  • Announcement - Mod Use Only, for subreddit announcements.
  • Daily (Formerly TTP) - Mod Use Only, for our daily discussion threads.
  • Discussion - A little advice, a little "How does your family handle this?"
  • JustBMThings - Pretty sure this is self explanatory!
  • Legal - Asking for legal advice? Tag it with this!
  • Miscellany - Just a sort of off topic thing? Use this tag.
  • Resource - Sharing a good resource or asking for one? This is the tag you need!
  • Support - For those days when you want nothing but a good old fashioned cry and some community love.
  • Update - Updating us on something that you posted about previously? Use this one!
  • Vent - We all need to vent sometimes. Respect the tag as a vent. This isn't how OP talks all day every day.
  • Win! - Celebrate those wins with us with this tag!
  • Megathread - Mod Use Only, for large mega threads (typically around major calendar events.)

Posting Guidelines for Bioparents

• Stepparents is a support community for stepparents, by stepparents. As bioparents, you may want to have more insight into how the stepparent in your life feels or thinks. You may have questions on how to ease the transition for your partner. However, please keep in mind that this community was not created for you. It was created for your partner or your ex's partner. If you are seeking support on how to deal with a stepparent, there are other subs more suited for your situation and your post is subject to removal.
• There are some posts from bioparents we will accept:
  • Seeking advice on how to support your partner as they navigate stepparenting
  • Seeking resources to help you better support your partner
  • Seeking resources for your partner
• There are some posts from bioparents we will not accept:
  • Complaints about how the stepparent is too involved in your kids lives
  • Vents about how the stepparent is not involved enough in your kids lives
  • "Cautionary tales" advising stepparents to back off
  • Seeking advice on how to tell the stepparent to back off
  • The Do's and Dont's of Stepparenting
  • How your kid's stepmom is literally The Worst
• Comments from bioparents that are helpful and supportive are welcome and appreciated. Comments from bioparents that are not helpful or supportive are not welcome and subject to removal. There are several other subs that may meet the needs of bioparents better than we can. We recommend /coparenting, /parenting, /parents, /blendedfamilies, and /singleparents as starting points.

Guidelines for Stepkids

• At this time, we do not generally accept posts from stepkids. Comments from stepkids that are helpful and supportive are welcome and appreciated. Comments from stepkids that are not helpful or supportive are not welcome and subject to removal. If you are a stepkid seeking support, we highly recommend /stepkids. It is a very supportive community specifically for stepkids. We also recommend /blendedfamilies as another potential group for support.

What the heck are all these acronyms? I'm confused!

• Check out the Common Acronyms wiki page. We try to keep this updated as new terms are introduced to the sub.

Why aren't my posts or comments showing up?

• New posters and accounts go through a waiting period before their posts will show in the sub and the comments on posts automatically. During the new account approval period the mod team will check posts to be sure you aren't attempting to circumvent a ban with a shiny new account. Please be patient while the timer runs down on your "new" status and the mod team approves your posts and responses.

Why was my comment removed?

• Comments are removed when they do not follow the rules of the sub. These rules are published in several places for your reading pleasure.
• Comments are removed at moderator discretion. In some cases your comment may be removed while another remains up. If you find this to be the case, and you believe the comment to be violating the rules, instead of arguing with mods or demanding they remove the additional comments, just report it.

This comment/post is really offensive! Why is it still up?

• All moderators are volunteers and have busy real lives. Sometimes things get past us. The best thing you can do is report anything you find offensive or inflammatory. It's the quickest and most reliable way of alerting us to an issue.

I've received a hurtful/unwanted PM from someone about my recent post. What should I do?

• If you receive an unwanted/hurtful PM from a name you don't recognize, please report it to Reddit Admins using our handy pre-populated form. Be sure to include the permalink to the message. We've been dealing with a few unhappy folks who like to attack stepparents, and reporting it to the admins is the only way to make it stop.

What are the general moderator guidelines?

• Users are expected to know the rules before posting. If you are warned or banned for violating the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.
• Moderators will remove posts and comments and/or lock threads in accordance with the rules above. Typically this happens when threads have gone off-topic in a way that is not productive for the OP, or comments overall have become contentious or disrespectful.
• If a poster continues to argue or to willfully violate these rules, temporary and permanent ban procedures will be followed. Any attempts to avoid or bypass temporary bans will result in a permanent ban. User bans will not be discussed in the sub. Questions posted about user bans are subject to removal and the poster subject to warning/ban procedures. The mod team will not discuss a specific user ban with anyone other than the user involved.
• New accounts are subject to manual approval until they are no longer deemed "new" by the mod team. This helps to weed out trolls and ban evaders.
• We rely on Automoderator to scan for specific words and phrases that are not welcome here and notify the mod team to review the comment or post. This includes slurs of any type and platitudes such as "Love them as your own!"
• The mod team uses a combination of blacklisting and banning when dealing with trolls.
• We employ the use of a bot that automatically bans anyone who comments in subs that have historically harassed our users. If you are picked up by the bot for telling trolls to get fucked, reach out via mod mail and we'll get you sorted out.
• The rules above as well as ban procedures are considered guidelines only; some deviation may be necessary on a case by case basis and/or at the mod team's discretion.

I've been wrongly banned/Why can't I comment here?

• Due to an influx of harassment from users with specific user histories, we have employed a user history ban bot as described above. If you think this has affected you and wish to appeal, please message the mods.

Why was I banned without warning?

• There are numerous reasons that the mod team might opt to move perm banning without warning. Message the moderators if you have specific questions.

Jitasama is a designed International Auxilliary Language meant to be a means of intercommunication between speakers of different languages.
Jitasama has:
18 letters ABDEFGIJKLMNOPRSTU
No verb tenses
No double consonants
No gramatical gender
No tones
No articles
Makes clear distinction of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs
Limited Affixes
Adjectives come after the noun while determiners come before the noun
1200 Root Words
4,700 total words

By maximizing shared vocabulary between Jitasama's 15 primary source languages, Jitasama's 1200 Root Words are lexically similar to; Mandarin Chinese 15%, English 44%, Hindi 27%, Spanish 45%, Arabic 20%, Indonesian 22%, Russian 26%, Bengali 23%, Portuguese 44%, French 43%, German 32%, Japanese 15%, Persian 28%, Swahili 18%, and Filipino 20%. Creating a nearly even mix of European and Non-European derived vocabulary.

LabialAlveolarPost-alveolarPalatalVelarLabial-velarGlottal Nasalmn Plosivepbtdkɡ Affricate Tapɾ Fricativefsʒ Approximantl



Vowels are pronounced the same as they are in Spanish
VowelPronunciationLip positionExamples aahLips and mouth wide open.Cama, mamá, azúcar eehLips slightly open and mouth stretched.Especie, estadio, ese ieLips slightly open and mouth stretched.Índigo, imagina, iría oohLips rounded and opened slightly.Oso, hoyo, asombroso uooLips rounded and almost fully closed.Universo, usuario, universidad

Vowel Diphthongs in Jitasama never combine into one sound, but are pronounced as two separate vowels.
Vowel diphthongsPronunciation uooo-oh uioo-e ueoo-eh uaoo-ah iue-oo ioe-oh iee-eh aiah-e ouoh-oo oioh-e eueh-oo eieh-e auah-oo iae-ah

You can use duplication on adjectives and nouns for dramatic effect, it will always create an adjective

kuela(happy, content) can become kuelakuela(delighted)
joi(joy) can become joijoi(overjoyed)

To create the plural, the particle fuju from Mandarin Chinese复数fu shu-plural is used after the noun.

kat - cat
kat fuju - cats
When there is an adjective accompanying the noun, the plural particle comes at the end of the noun phrase.
kat bela - a/the beautiful cat
kat bela fuju - the beautiful cats

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

I've always been someone who loves to travel and experience new things, so I really resonate with this idea of being "homestuck." When I'm on the road or exploring a new city, I feel a sense of excitement and freedom that I don't always feel when I'm at home. It's not that I don't love my home and the people in it, but there's just something special about the thrill of discovery and the opportunity to learn and grow in unfamiliar places.
At the same time, I really appreciate the comment from u/WhoNeedsSunlight about the deep connections often have to our hometowns. The memories, experiences, and relationships tied to a particular place can be incredibly powerful and meaningful. For many people, the desire to explore is balanced by a strong sense of attachment to their home and the things that make them who they are.
I think this highlights the idea that being "homestuck" (in the sense of loving travel and exploration) doesn't necessarily mean you don't appreciate or feel connected to your home. It's possible to have a deep love for your hometown while still feeling the pull of wanderlust and the excitement of new experiences.
I even came up with a fun little definition for the term:
homestuck (adjective):

1. Feeling content, adventurous, or enthusiastic about being away from one's home for an extended period.
2. Exhibiting a strong desire or wanderlust to leave one's home and explore new places, often accompanied by a sense of restlessness when confined to familiar surroundings.

homestuck (noun):

1. A person who embraces and thrives in new environments, often feeling more alive and fulfilled when away from their home.
2. An individual who frequently travels or relocates, sometimes as a means of seeking personal growth and new experiences.

Of course, this is just a playful way of describing the feeling – I don't think being "homestuck" (in this sense) is necessarily better or worse than being a homebody. Everyone has their own preferences and comfort levels when it comes to travel and exploration.
I'm curious, do any of you ever feel "homestuck"? What do you love most about traveling or exploring new places? And if you're more of a homebody, what do you appreciate most about being in familiar surroundings?

Hey there, neology fans! I've been working on a new word, "homestuck," to describe someone who feels content or enthusiastic about being away from home, or who has a strong desire to explore new places. Here's the full definition:
homestuck (adjective):

1. Feeling content, adventurous, or enthusiastic about being away from one's home for an extended period.
2. Exhibiting a strong desire or wanderlust to leave one's home and explore new places, often accompanied by a sense of restlessness when confined to familiar surroundings.

homestuck (noun):

1. A person who embraces and thrives in new environments, often feeling more alive and fulfilled when away from their home.
2. An individual who frequently travels or relocates, sometimes as a means of seeking personal growth and new experiences.

Etymology: A play on the word "homesick," which was first recorded in 1798 as a back-formation from "homesickness," a translation of the German word "Heimweh." The term "homestuck" is a proposed neologism that inverts the meaning of "homesick," likely coined in the early 21st century. The term gained popularity through its use in the webcomic "Homestuck" by Andrew Hussie, which ran from 2009 to 2016. The comic's widespread popularity online helped to establish "homestuck" as a potential word in its own right, separate from the comic's context.
Pronunciation: /ˈhōmˌstək/
I believe this neologism captures a feeling that many adventurous people experience but may not have had a specific word for before. It's important to note that while the term "homestuck" can describe a desire to escape problems or responsibilities at home, this definition focuses on the more positive aspects of the word, such as personal growth and the thrill of new experiences.
What do you think about this new word? Do you know anyone who might be described as "homestuck"? Let me know your thoughts!

Hello fellow logophiles! I've been playing around with the idea of "homestuck" as a proposed word to describe someone who feels content or enthusiastic about being away from home, or who has a strong desire to explore new places. It's a play on the word "homesick," but with the opposite meaning.
I've crafted a full definition with synonyms, antonyms, and an etymology:
homestuck (adjective):

1. Feeling content, adventurous, or enthusiastic about being away from one's home for an extended period.
2. Exhibiting a strong desire or wanderlust to leave one's home and explore new places, often accompanied by a sense of restlessness when confined to familiar surroundings.

homestuck (noun):

1. A person who embraces and thrives in new environments, often feeling more alive and fulfilled when away from their home.
2. An individual who frequently travels or relocates, sometimes as a means of escaping problems or responsibilities at home or seeking personal growth and new experiences.

Now, I know what some of you might be thinking – doesn't "homestuck" sound like someone who is stuck at home? It's a fair point, and I can see how the term might be interpreted that way at first glance. But the way I'm using it here is actually the opposite – it's about feeling a sense of excitement and fulfillment when you're away from home, rather than feeling stuck or confined.
Of course, this is just a playful way of describing the feeling – I don't think being "homestuck" is necessarily better or worse than being a homebody. Everyone has their own preferences and comfort levels when it comes to travel and exploration.
Etymology: A play on the word "homesick," likely coined in the early 21st century. The term gained popularity through its use in the webcomic "Homestuck" by Andrew Hussie, which ran from 2009 to 2016. The comic's widespread popularity online helped to establish "homestuck" as a potential word in its own right, separate from the comic's context.
Please note that this is a proposed addition to the English language and not yet a widely recognized word. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this potential new term!

Absolutely! English is a Germanic language! It is not some Romance language just because of the huge amount of French and Latin words we have taken. Language families and branches are about the genetics of a language, not the vocabulary. Trust me, I have been doing a Latin course on Duolingo and it is so different, I was making 10 mistakes just to get basic words like "puella", "puer", and "vir". The only word I could guess as an English speaker was "Femina", and as I got deeper into the course, I was able to guess city names like "Novum Eboracum" meaning New York with the etymology that too because I knew the etymology of the words "New" and "York", "York" from the Latin word "Eboracum"
The grammar of English and Latin is also different. In English, we put the auxiliary verb before the object but in Latin, it is correct to do this reverse as well. In English, if I have to write "I am Effective_Hand_3438", this is the only way to convey this exact meaning, but in Latin, we can do "Effective_Hand_3438 sum" meaning "Effective_Hand_3438 am", "Ego Effective_Hand_3438 sum" meaning "I Effective_Hand_3438 am". English adds the adjective before the noun the aforementioned adjective is describing, but in Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages, do the reverse like "Domi dormit" meaning "At home sleeps", "Domi" is the adjective here, so how did it reverse even if English did derive from Latin if every other Romance language has it? I know you will say in the comments, that I am talking about Modern English when I should be talking about Old English which might have these features. Oh! You just disproved your point! Don't you know how similar Old English was to modern-day German? The word for patient (adjective) was "geþyldig" similar to the German word "Geduldig", now you might be saying that English can be a creole of Old English, Norman French and Latin. Yes, and England was colonized by the Normans led by the famous William the Conqueror in creoles the common convention is that the vocabulary comes from the colonizer's language and the grammar comes from the native tongue, but if that were to happen, English would have lost all of its irregularities that it still has like "oxen" instead of "oxes", "children" instead of "childs", but that did not happen, but I agree that creolization isn't full or null, it could have been a partial creolization, but the jury is still out on that, but that's just a theory

Im 13 and in year 8 and had the homework task of writing a paragraph about how Boxer from animal farm progresses throughout the novella and here it is! I know it’s not good so I would really appreciate feedback. I know it’s really long sorry
Throughout the novella, Orwell depicts Boxer as a selfless and sympathetic worker while simultaneously portraying him as gullible, and exposing the manipulation he suffers due to his naïveté and lack of literacy.
Napoleon, after successfully exiling Snowball, decides that the building of the windmill will in fact go ahead, requiring the animals’ input. In an attempt to inspire the animals, Squealer is then tasked with giving motivational speeches to them, yet it was often the sight of Boxer ‘toiling up the slope inch by inch, his breath coming fast, the tips of his hoofs clawing at the ground and his great sides matted with sweat’ that filled everyone with motivation. The use of listing emphasises the substantial amount of strength and vigour exerted by Boxer while working on the farm. Concurrently, it also creates a vivid image of travail using figurative language, which causes the reader to feel sympathetic for Boxer. The verb [toil] implies prolonged and fatiguing labour, uncovering how much he sacrifices for the farm and revealing Boxer’s altruistic and heroic character. Alternatively, it also connotes exploitation, with employees being forced to work unjust, strenuous hours with little to no return, exposing how his willingness to drudge is leveraged by Napoleon.
Despite enduring all these struggles, he never complains or protests and in fact regularly states ‘[he] will work harder’. Boxer’s frequent repetition of this maxim reveals how devoted he is to the animal’s cause and his unwavering dedication to Napoleon’s regime. It also demonstrates how he is a vital and key part of Animal Farm’s revolt, as he already works more than any other animal on the farm yet still endeavours to give more, shown by him reducing his sleep hours. His constant desire to ‘work harder’ is what has led to him becoming one of the most respected animals on Animal Farm, a quality Napoleon manipulates to promote his ideology towards the other animals. The first person personal pronoun ‘I’ depicts the accountability Boxer feels and through this, we are able to infer that in the face of adversity, he finds faults in himself, rather than in Napoleon and his governance, hinting at his indoctrination; he is convinced that Napoleon, as the leader of Animal Farm, can do no wrong, and any problems on the farm are a result of his own shortcomings, illustrating his naïveté. Alternately, ‘I’ could perhaps elucidate how he sacrifices himself to ameliorate the lives of the other animals on the farm, conveying his self-abnegation.
This is not the only motto Boxer adopts, as after Squealer diminishes Snowball’s accomplishments in the Battle of the Cowshed, Boxer has the chance to think things over, and comes to the conclusion that ‘Napoleon is always right’. The use of the simple sentence betrays Boxer’s innocence, as well as his lack of intelligence, as he is not able to deliberate complex pieces of information. Furthermore, this quote demonstrates that he believes everything told to him by Napoleon, uncovering the degree to which Napoleon reveres and follows the Pigs, indicating how he has been indoctrinated. This is further emphasised by the use of logical fallacy; it is impossible for Napoleon to be right all of the time, implying that this statement is false. From this, we come to acknowledge that Boxer is tricked and manipulated into assuming an argument that, with logic, can be easily dismantled, uncovering how it is lack of literacy that is allowing Napoleon to abuse and terrorise him and the other animals. Boxer is an extremely strong, large horse, as well as the most powerful on the farm, meaning he could easily take down the Pigs with brute strength, but as he isn’t able to realise the corruptness of Napoleon’s regime or speak out against him, he ends up suffering. The adverb ‘always’ implies the fact that there is no room for dissent against Napoleon and emphasises how absolute his power is. It also suggests continued faith and devotion to a leader, and this devotion keeps the animals passive towards Napoleon and his abuse.
Boxer, due to his lack of intelligence, is constantly at the receiving end of this abuse, contrary the fact that ‘Nothing on the farm could’ve been achieved without [him], whose strength seemed equal to that of all the other animals put together’ The use of the declarative sentence asserts Boxer’s significance on the farm, and shows that his strength was essential and critical to the farm’s development. By emphasising Boxer’s brawn through comparison, Orwell, while conveying his notably immense physical strength, prompts you to consider the fact that he is still just a subordinate worker, due to his stupidity. Additionally, the phrase might allude to how Boxer, as arguably the most influential character on Animal Farm, is used by Napoleon to control and manipulate the other animals: by indoctrinating Boxer with his corrupt ideologies, Napoleon is able to sway the others, meaning without Boxer and his influence, Napoleon would not have been able to dominate and command Animal Farm, exhibiting his role as a pawn in enabling Napoleon’s regime. The pronoun ‘nothing’ exaggerates the extent to which the farm requires Napoleon’s input, by suggesting that absolutely nothing could have been achieved without him, indicating his prominence. Contrarily, ‘nothing’ also connotes insignificance, which exposes how despite everything Boxer does for the farm, he is a mere tool utilised by Napoleon to further his agenda.
Orwell has arguably presented Boxer this way to reveal how without the benefit of learning and the ability to express themselves, people are susceptible to being exploited by their ruthless leaders, despite their strength in number. Boxer serves as an allegory for the Russian proletariat, who helped to oust Tsar Nicholas II and establish the Soviet Union, but were eventually betrayed by the Communist government under Stalin. His sympathetic character alludes to how the proletariat were abused by Stalin unjustly, and is a result of Orwell’s intent to prompt pity for the Russian proletariat from the reader. By characterising Boxer as gullible and naïve despite his immense physical power, Orwell uncovers the ease Stalin had in enforcing his power over the numerous proletariat and manipulating them due to their lack of literacy and simultaneously criticises Stalin’s tyrannical rule of the people powering his nation.

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

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.

Introduction:

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.
I won't resort to personal attacks and baseless claims (much like he does), and I will jump straight ahead to answering his objections.

Response to the introduction:

He begins by discussing my translation of the word "ישוחח," which I interpret as "argue" or "put forth."
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). 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, perhaps because he believes that the Old Testament was revealed with diacritic markings—I don't know.
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. In contrast, I (and many others) see them as ancient interpretations of the original Hebrew text, which are very erroneous. This is especially true considering that rabbis themselves claim these scholars and translators failed to understand every Hebrew idiom in the book. They took everything literally and thus deviated from the intended meaning throughout their translations. These are the translations he claims must agree with my understanding.
The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts, leading them to render some verses erroneously, whether knowingly or unknowingly—we can't be certain. However, I believe it wasn't unknowingly, and I have very good reasons for holding this opinion.
His arguments in his objections are all flawed and fallacious.

The Original sin being denied in the OT:

Now, the word he is fixated on is "ישוחח." As he mentioned, I used a classical Hebrew dictionary to translate the word. I don't remember the exact dictionary I used, but here is a random one I will use today:

Root: שִׂיחַ (v)
1 - to put forth, mediate, muse, commune, speak, complain, ponder, sing
1 -(Qal)
1 - to complain
2 - to muse, meditate upon, study, ponder
3 - to talk, sing, speak
2 - (Polel) to meditate, consider, put forth thoughts

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.
This following excerpt is from my original post about this, the post he is "refuting":
Excerpt from the post in question:
_______________________
Isaiah 53:8, traditional translation:
"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."
The original verse (without diacritics):
מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת־דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו:
My translation:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will argue that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."
_______________________
In this verse, God is explicitly denying the doctrine of the Original Sin, stating that those who argue, speak, put forth, or ponder that Jesus was killed for the sins of His (God's) people are cursed (or afflicted by a plague).
It is crystal clear! He is just in denial because it contradicts his Pauline doctrine. 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), and claims that Exion has made a grave error. Incredible, indeed. What a rebuttal!
Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:
1. Meditate:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will meditate that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

The definition of "Meditate" is:

1. To plan mentally; consider,
   
2. To focus one's mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation.
   

I know it isn't the latter, because that is just ludicrous and silly. But guess what? They even tried to claim it is the latter, which is beyond amusing to me and any other sane person reading this.
2. Consider:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will consider that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
3. Put forth thoughts:

"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will put forth thoughts that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."

It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
This is what I have to deal with. He is correcting my interpretation by yet again confirming it and he doesn't even realize it. He refuses to accept that the Old Testament completely refutes this absurd Pauline doctrine that God sent His "son" to the earth to kill him and forgive mankind. He can't understand that the Old Testament aligns with the Quran, calling them cursed. I have explained this to him several times, but to no avail. According to him, the early Christians "meditated" about Jesus' "abode." He raises the same objection in every comment he makes on every future post I do, as if I haven't just refuted him using the Bible, dictionaries, and other sources. In one ear and out the other. The only reason I'm even writing this response is to make you guys realize how unknowledgeable this man really is about the Bible and the Hebrew language. But he is good at making it look like he knows a thing or two by using fancy words and elaborations that make no sense at all.
I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:

"By oppressive judgment he was taken away, Who could describe his abode?..."

This unusual rendering is achieved by mistranslating a word, done specifically to alter the actual meaning. Some Jewish translators render it the same way, but they at least have the decency to add a footnote saying:

"\Who could describe his abode?* Meaning of Heb. uncertain." (source: Sefaria.org)

As they usually do when they mistranslate stuff.
Who would describe Jesus abode? What?! With all due respect, but that makes no sense at all! It makes no sense contextually nor logically.
This is how another Jewish translation has it:

"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."

Does this look like a coherent sentence to you? Jesus is taken from imprisonment and judgement, and his generation who shall tell? Tell what? This is an incomplete sentence - just to change the actual intended message.
The original phrase is: "ואת־דורו מי ישוחח"
Let me break it down for you:

Word: ואת = "And his"
Word: ־דורו = "Generation"
Word: מי = "Who will"
Word: ישוחח = "Argue/Put forth/Talk/consideetc"

Crystal clear phrase. Even Google translates it accurately (which is very rare by the way):

"And his generation who will talk"

Take a look at some of the English translations of his Christian forefathers:
New Living Translation Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants...
New International Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?...
King James Bible He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?...
Some others got the first part accurate but still misinterpreted the last part of the verse, as it claims that they are cursed. God forbid, they are the ones who are cursed, for they consider Jesus to be the cursed one:
English Standard Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
They applied the "curse/plague" to Jesus (which they translate as "stricken," even though Biblically it is generally understood to be a plague/curse) instead of applying it to those "who considered" (i.e., the Pauline Christians). The Hebrew verse uses a plural word, indicating that it was intended for those people who would put forth this claim. They all refuse to accept the fact that God is explicitly and literally stating that they are affected by a plague for their erroneous claim about Jesus.
Let's quickly refute them too:

• The word for "plague" is "נגע" (nega).
• The word for "to them" is "למו" (lamo).

"Plague" (נגע):

Hebrew classical dictionary:

Heb: נֶגַע (n-m)
1 - stroke, plague, disease, mark, plague spot
stroke, wound
stroke (metaphorical of disease)
mark (of leprosy)

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible

"To them" (לָֽמוֹ):

Hebrew classical dictionary:

1 - inflected pers. pron. meaning ‘to them’ (poetically).
2 - [Formed from לְ◌ with ◌מוֹ, a suff. used only in poetry.]

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
A plague to whom? TO THEM! To the people who put forth this Pauline doctrine, the ones who argued, said, or considered this absurdity. Absolutely not to the one they believed to be cut off for the sin of God's people, namely Jesus, God's prophet, Messiah, His Word, and a spirit from Him.
But this is not surprising to anyone; it is expected, because their savior Paul also considered the blessed Messiah Jesus to be a curse:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13)

It bothers them that God Himself is confirming that they are the cursed ones, and He does it in the book they believe in. I am the one who exposed it, and all praise is due to God alone. It bothers this guy who is "eXpOsInG" me, and I won't mention his name because that is most likely what he wants.
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. Much of what he initiated his "rebuttal" with is equally misunderstood by him, and I have responded to each and every objection in my older posts (in the comment sections where he was "eXpOsInG" me). I picked the first thing and refuted it here for you just to show how ignorant he really is and how he is either living a lie or lying to others.
So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered. It's a waste of time. Let’s move on to his objections to my latest posts, because that is what this is all about in reality.

My answers to his objections to my latest posts:

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

"Stone to a stone," or "upon a stone"

My answer:
"Stone to a stone" is not a Hebrew idiom, and neither is the word "upon" there in Hebrew. He doesn't know Hebrew, had he known Hebrew, he would never have "eXpOsEd" this because it just went to show that he doesn't know the language at all.
The Hebrew word "שום" (shum) in this context is derived from the root ש-ו-ם, which means "to place" or "to put." It appears here as an infinitive construct, which is often used to convey the act of doing something, similar to the English "-ing" form. In this sentence, "שום" is functioning as a gerund, which is a verbal noun. It translates to "placing" or "putting" in English. Therefore, "שום־אבן" means "placing a stone" or "putting a stone."
As for the next word, i.e. "stone" (אבן), in Hebrew, nouns have gender (masculine or feminine) and number (singular or plural). "אבן" is a feminine singular noun. When used in the phrase "שום־אבן" (placing a stone), "אבן" functions as the direct object of the action described by the infinitive construct "שום" (placing).
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."
So if we're going with their interpretation, while being literal, as we should because it is not an idiom, it accurately translates to:
"Before placing a stone to a stone" or "before placing stone to stone"
Which makes very little sense, if any. Why wouldn't God say "Before placing stone upon stone" or "Stones upon stones" or "before placing a stone upon a stone"? Why did He use a singular word for "stone"? Because it is speaking about a one stone, the stone that God placed in Zion:

"So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic." (Isaiah 28:16)

I have proven in countless posts that Zion is the ancient name for Mecca. Just look up Psalm 84, and you will see how it mentions doing the pilgrimage in Zion and also mentions "Bacca," another name for Mecca. I have proven how Harran is located in Mecca and that the oak of Bacca is located there as well, and we know according to Psalm 84 that Zion is located where Bacca is located. With this in mind, it’s easy to see what has been done to cover up this prophecy. They have misinterpreted the word "El" as "Upon" instead of "God." The definition of that word is not "Upon"; it means "To/toward" or "God."
Classical Hebrew dictionary:

Heb: אֵל (n-m)
god, god-like one, mighty one
mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
angels
god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature
strength, power

Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
And:

Heb: אֶל (prep.)
denoting motion toward or to, or direction toward, and meaning ‘to, unto, toward, into, at, by’.
[Shortened from אֱלֵי (which is preserved in poetry). cp. עֲלֵי, poetical form of עַל (= on), and עֲדֵי, poetical form of עַד (= as far as, until). Related to Arab. ’ilā (= to, toward, up to).]

Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
Let's see if any of these help him:

Before placing a stone to a stone?
Before placing a stone towards a stone?
Before placing a stone into a stone?
Before placing a stone unto a stone? (archaic term for "to")
Before placing a stone at a stone?
Before placing a stone by a stone?

Does any of this make any sense to you? I believe it certainly does not. Yet they have all chosen to ignore these valid definitions and instead opt for a definition that isn't there, namely: "a stone UPON a stone," just to claim that God was idiomatically saying "Before you build the temple." The temple was already built, as I will prove later below.
To get a more coherent translation, one that makes sense both contextually and linguistically, we need to consider "El" as "God":

ועתה - "And now"
שימו־נא - "consider, please"
לבבכם - "your heart"
מן־היום - "from this day"
הזה - "this"
ומעלה - "and onward"
מטרם - "before"
שום־אבן - "placing a stone"
אל־אבן - "God's stone/stone of God"
בהיכל - "in the Temple"
יהוה - "of YHWH" (YHWH)

Here, "אל־אבן" would translate to "God's stone" or "stone of God." 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"
He is just in denial here as well. It is quite obvious that God is talking about placing a stone in the Temple of God, not about placing a stone towards a stone (whatever that means). Biblically, it is known that Jacob placed a stone in the House of God in Harran, which I have also proven to be located in the vicinity of Mecca, using 1st-century CE atlases by giants in geography such as Pomponius Mela, Pliny, and others.
He writes:

"More importantly, Exion ignored that “stone” in the Hebrew occurs twice. If we take אל to be God and take it as the construct state (the ‘s) then it would be “before setting stone’s God’s stone”. That doesn’t make sense hence why Exion dropped the first occurrence of אֶ֛בֶן in their translation."

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.
In the phrase "שום־אבן אל־אבן" (placing a stone as God's stone), the context and the nouns' arrangement provide the possessive meaning without requiring additional grammatical changes. "אל־אבן" can be understood as "God's stone" even though it is not in the formal construct state. This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why. I have my speculations, but I will refrain from personal attacks.
He says:

"It makes perfect sense with the rest of the verse “in the temple of Yahweh.” It’s talking about before the building of the temple which involved setting stone upon stone."

Oh really? Is that why the 3rd verse literally talks about the Temple that already was in existence but was viewed as nothing in their eyes (i.e. insignificant):

"Who among you is left, who saw this house in its former glory? And as you see it now, is it not as nothing in your eyes?" (Haggai 2:3)

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.
This is why Jacob, upon waking from his prophetic dream, never built the House of God. (Yes, Jacob was a prophet, but Christian scholars throughout history didn't recognize this and thought he was merely a patriarch.) Instead, he only placed a stone as its cornerstone and named it "The House of God":

16. When Jacob woke up, he thought, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was unaware of it.” 17. And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!” 18. Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it."

Going back to Haggai 2, the 6th verse states:

"כי כה אמר יהוה צבאות עוד אחת מעט היא ואני מרעיש את־השמים ואת־הארץ ואת־הים ואת־החרבה:"

Which literally translates to:

"For thus says the Lord of Hosts: Once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land."

Which they have erroneously translated as:

"For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will rise] another one, and I will shake up the heaven and the earth and the sea and the dry land [for] a little while." (source)

Lying and adding words to the Word of God to make it look like another House would be raised.
7th verse states:
Haggai 2:7

"והרעשתי את־כל־הגוים ובאו חמדת כל־הגוים ומלאתי את־הבית הזה כבוד אמר יהוה צבאות:"

Transliteration:

"Ve-hir'ashti et kol ha-goyim u-va'u chemdat kol ha-goyim u-milati et ha-bayit ha-zeh kavod amar Adonai Tzva'ot."

Not only does it confirm that the House is already in existence, but it mentioned our prophet Ahmad coming to it by using the cognate of his name, "Chemdat," which they erroneously have translated as:

"and the treasures of all the nations will be brought to this Temple."

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.
Let me break it down for you:

והרעשתִי (ve-hir'ashti) - "and I will shake"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
כל (kol) - "all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ובאו (u-va'u) - "and they will come"
חמדת (Chemdat) - "Chemdat" (proper noun)
כל (kol) - "of all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ומלאתי (u-milati) - "and I will fill"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
הבית (ha-bayit) - "the house"
הזה (ha-zeh) - "this"
כבוד (kavod) - "glory"
אמר (amar) - "says"
יהוה (Adonai) - "Lord"
צבאות (Tzva'ot) - "of Hosts"

Result:

"And I will shake all the heathens, and they will come, Chemdat of all the heathens, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of Hosts."

Explanation:

They have translated it as "the treasures of..." while the phrase "Chemdat" lacks a "The" (Ha), so it would more accurately be rendered as:

"And they will come, treasure of all the heathens, and..."

A very awkward sentence grammatically. And the dictionaries do not define חמדת (Chemdat) as "Treasure," but rather as "Desire" or "Precious." But translating this phrase in this way (if we consider it to mean "desire" or "precious"), we would make the verse even more awkward:

"And they will come, desire of all the heathens" or "And they will come, precious of all the heathens."

Because it is a singular phrase, and not plural, and as I mentioned earlier, lacks a definite preposition.
But if we consider "Chemdat" as a cognate of "Ahmad," as a proper noun referring to Ahmad the prophet (the only heathen prophet known today), it suddenly becomes a very coherent verse that makes much sense. The heathens will be shaken, and they will come. Then, He specifies by saying: Chemdat of all the heathens, and continues with the rest of the verse.
The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens," which supports the interpretation that "Chemdat" is a proper noun referring to a significant heathen person anticipated to come. God is going to shake all the heathens, and they will come. Then He specifies who would come: "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)." He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists; Chemdat of all nations was just about to come, and God would fill this house with glory again. And, of course, the stone Jacob laid in Genesis 28—the same stone that Jesus referred to in Matthew 21:

1. Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'

43. Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

The Kingdom of God was intended to be taken away from the Christians and given to a people who would produce its fruits, and this is what happened when Islam came.
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."

Just because God considers the two Houses (the current one they saw as insignificant and the later one) as "different" does not mean that it does not already exist physically but will be a different House.
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. But the prophecy is still valid. The new moon to new moon would come, and yes, the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End"), but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "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"

Let's agree that it means what the traditional translations say it means, and I don't mean hypothetically, but let's actually agree on that. However, the prophecy about the new moons (Ramadan) is still there and valid because God has not canceled the Sabbath in the Quran; it is still ongoing:
The Quran states in 2:40-42:

Verse 40: "O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and fulfill My covenant [upon you] that I will fulfill your covenant [from Me], and fear Me."
Verse 41: "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs/verses for a small price, and fear Me."
Verse 42: "And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]."

The new moon to a new moon is combined with the Sabbath to Sabbath. This is a fulfilled prophecy!
I don't see easter, halloween or Christmas being mentioned here. It's Ramadan and the Sabbath, the two Covenants God has given to his worshipers, the Covenant of the Children of Israel and the Covenant of Peace, unlike the Pauline Christians who literally took all of their holidays from pagan idolaters, which I won't go into because it's not very relevant to our discussion anyways.
This marks the end of my rebuttal to his "part 1."
Thank you for reading,
/Your bro Exion.

I always thing that if excited is served as a verb in passive voice, I would say:
Excited by the news, I was over the moon.
If excited is an adjective, I would say Being excited about meeting my aunt, I was over thr moon.
But when I google, it seems Excited... is more common than Being excited... Is it because no matter how "excited" has a passive sense?

Everyone here is saying how Gemini is so great at creative writing! Do you use system instructions? What are your favorite? This is mine, first I asked Gemini to help me write the best one based on my needs:
Goal: To create compelling, authentic blog posts that inspire, educate, and encourage personal growth.
Target Audience: Readers interested in spirituality, mindfulness, love, conscious business, and personal development.
Writing Style:

• Clear and Concise: Use simple language, avoid jargon.
• Active Voice: Focus on actions taken by the subject.
• Avoid Adverbs: Use strong verbs.
• Plain English: Stick to everyday language.
• Neutral Tone: Express calm confidence without being salesy.
• Authenticity: Write from a genuine place, revealing your struggles and lessons learned.

Structure:

1. Personal Story Hook: Start each post with a personal story that sets the stage for your topic.
2. Body:
   • Develop your ideas logically.
   • Use storytelling and anecdotes to connect with readers.
   • Explore your personal struggles and lessons learned.
   • Offer insights and practical advice.
3. Conclusion:
   • Offer a takeaway or key lesson learned.
   • Encourage further engagement and reflection.

Dependency Grammar Framework: Pay attention to word order and proximity for readability.
Content:

• Focus on Emotion: Use vivid language and sensory details.
• Universal Themes: Tap into shared human experiences.
• Thought-Provoking: Ask questions and encourage critical thinking.
• Authenticity: Be vulnerable and honest about your journey.

Additional Notes:

• Flesch Reading Ease Score: Aim for a score of 80 or higher.
• Avoid "Overused" Phrases: Stay away from clichés.
• Be Creative: Experiment with different writing styles and formats.

I have been trying to do this for hours but I just can't think of anything, or anything I think of is kind of stupid or I think of a poem but I can't think of twenty things to do all twenty things on the list.
Is there anything I can do to stop the writers block, or figure out what to write about, or any ideas anyone has?
Here's the things I have to write:
Begin the poem with a metaphor.
Say something specific but utterly preposterous.
Use at least one image for each of the five senses, either in succession, or randomly throughout the poem.
Use one example of synesthesia (mixing of the senses).
Use the proper name of a person and the proper name of a place.
Contradict something you said earlier in the poem.
Change direction or digress from the last thing you said.
Use a word (maybe slang) you’ve never seen in a poem.
Use an example of false cause-effect logic
Use a piece of “talk” you’ve actually heard (preferably in dialect and/or which you don’t understand.
Create a metaphor using the following construction: “The (adjective) (concrete noun) of (abstract noun)…
Use an image in such a way as to reverse its usual associative qualities.
Make a persona or character in the poem do something he/she/they could not do in “real life.”
Refer to yourself by nickname and in the third person.
Write in the future tense, such that part of the poem seems to be a prediction.
Modify a noun with an unlikely adjective.
Make a declarative assertion that sounds convincing but that finally makes no sense.
Use a phrase from a language other than English.
Make a non-human object say or do something human (personification.)
Close the poem with a vivid image that makes no statement, but that “echoes” an image from earlier in the poem.
The only thing I've got so far is I watch the sunlight dance on the water ( for personification )

A yandere sees everyone surrounding the guy as if they're going after the guy, be it male or female, and she will actually attack people to get what she wants, in some cases gorily so, in other cases just name-calling or hiding their possessions somewhere or whatever.
Many yandere are introduced as looking normal and cute. Lovable. Extremely sympathetic. But that's often because they're only shown interacting with their love interest. Once a third characters gets into the equation she starts showing her true colors. That is, an yandere character starts crazy, she doesn't go crazy, she was crazy from the beginning but nobody knew.
Note that the above isn't necessarily true. Some yandere are undeniably nuts from the start. Why a yandere has become insane can vary: she might be a broken victim of some horrible event, or she might simply have a natural inclination to become a serial killer. In any case, as long as she has a mentally sick kind of love she's a yandere.
(the most common type of yandere is violent and jealous, but there are other types of yandere written further below)

Yandere Word Meaning

The yan in the word yandere ヤンデレ comes from the verb yanderu 病んでる which means "to be sick (mentally)." This is slightly different from the verb yamu 病む which means "to be sick (generally)," despite yanderu 病んでる being also considered a contraction of the verb yamu in the te-iru form yandeiru 病んでいる.
A somewhat related word is the word koiyamai 恋病, meaning "lovesick" and written with the kanji for love (koi 恋) and sickness (yamai 病)Word Meaning

Yangire ヤンギレ

A yangire ヤンギレ character is an yandere devoid of love and filled with rage. Which is some pretty bad combination considering the yan of yandere means "mentally sick." So now you have someone who is mentally sick and that has snapped.
A common type of yangire character is the one that has gone through some sort of trauma and then snaps and goes on a killing spree after getting triggered. Generally speaking, yangire characters have no faith left for the world so they don't care much about killing or getting killed. They just want to watch the world burn.
As one would expect, a yangire character doesn't necessarily have a romantic interest (Please Remember that they doesn't necessarily involves love and romance means that IT IS JUST OPTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS because Yangires could have things to do with love or romance at all. This is a notes from me).
A yandere would have one, and would go around killing everyone around her lover in a very jelly genocide, but a yangire is a strong independent character who needs no romantic interest in order to start a massacre. Anyway, yangire characters are pretty much crazy and crazy violent. All you need to know is that they are crazier than yandere characters and that ought to say a lot.

Types of Yandere

In the west, yandere is basically always associated with the jealous, violent type of yandere, which is the most common. However, given that the word just means "mentally sick and in love," there are other types of yandere which would be recognized only in the Japanese speaking community.
Because they're just Japanese nouns followed by the suffix gata 型, meaning "model," as in "[car] model." So where one would say "a XXX-ing yandere" in English to say what the yandere does, in Japanese there's a noun for that, so it becomes XXX-gata yandere, "yandere of type XXX."
A single yandere can (and normally will) fit in multiple of these types at a time. In particular, Yuno Gasai fits a dozen of them, which is why she's an ideal example of yandere.
All types of yandere can be male or female, straight, gay, lesbian, etc. but the descriptions below assume a female yandere and that "you" are their male victim love interest;
Anyway, here's the list: (sorted by degree of insanity, ascending, see diagram)

mugai-gata 無害型

Harmless type.
"As long as he's happy, I'm happy."
The most harmless type of yandere, the one where she's fallen in love in an unhealthy, obsessive way, but she doesn't do anything insane about it. She'll try hard to become your girl, but won't harm anybody in the way. If you get a girlfriend, she won't attack you two, she'll be happy you found happiness, and maybe still have hope that you choose her in the end.

kanchigai-gata 勘違い型

Wrong idea type.
"He gave me an eraser... this must mean he loves me!"
She gets the wrong idea when you do something in order to match her expectations. If you say you don't love her, she'll think you're lying because of you don't want to hurt her or something. If you do something out of kindness to her, she'll think it's out of love. And so on.

shuuchaku-gata 執着型

Obsession type.
"I sent you 50 messages, why didn't you answer? Where were you? What were you doing?"
Tries to learn everything about you. Personal info, hobbies, routine, etc. Sends regular messages to check on you, asks why you haven't answered if you didn't, wants to know what you're doing always. All the time. And, if possible, walks around with you all the time too.
The obsession type doesn't necessarily want to monopolize you. She'll let you hang around with friends, etc. but wants to know everything you do. She probably wants to go with you, too. If she can't go somewhere with you, she might stalk you.
If she learns a girl is too close to you, she might attack.

sutookaa-gata ストーカー型

Stalker type.
Follows you around, often without you knowing. May be in broad daylight or at night, when you're walking alone on the streets. Maybe even online. A girl of this type is also often of the obsessive type.

dokusen-gata 独占型

Monopoly type. (This is the most common type.)
"Who is that person you were talking to?"
She wants to monopolize you. Will ask who you talk to and hang with, in extreme cases won't let you be with anyone else, not even your friends. This type of behavior is unfortunately common in real life. It displays insecurities and lack of trust in the relationship which might develop into much worse yandere behavior.

ison-gata 依存型

Dependence type. ("dependence" as in addiction, alcohol dependence, chemical, etc.)
"No, don't leave me! Please! I can't live without you!"
Can't live without you. Begs you to not leave hethrow her away. Says she will die if you go away. May lose will to do anything if you aren't watching. If you do leave, she might go full crazy and end up doing something crazy like going on a murderous rampage or something.

touei-gata 投影型

Projection type.
"You're just like him"
After her former love turned out to be a completely different person than she loved, or got a girlfriend, or died, or something like that, and she can no longer stay with him, she searched for someone who was just like what her love was, and she found you.
This type of of yandere is very innocent at first, but if she's given power to dominate her new beloved, she might end up trying to make him more and more like what her old interest was. For example, wearing the same things, doing the same things, etc.
Sometimes, she might project her ideal lover not on someone else but on same guy. That is, she might say "you are not him, he does this," to you even though you actually are him and you don't do "this."

shoushitsu-gata 消失型

Disappearance type. (This has nothing to do with Haruhi Suzumiya)
"He will never love someone like me... why exist?"
She loves you, maybe you know that, maybe you don't, but unknown this gives her a crushing depression. She think you'll never love her and she has no chance, but she can't stop her unhealthy feelings of love. She thinks you're too good for her, or that she's too worthless for you. This makes her slowly fade away, disappear from your life. Until she completely disappears forever (kills herself).
This is an atypical yandere since it has so little effect on other characters' lives.

shuumatsu-gata 終末型

Final type. ("final" as in "the end," not as in "final form" or "final fantasy" whatever that final means)
"I don't need a world where he doesn't exist."
After learning you died, she loses purposes in life. The world for her was you, and you're now gone. What this results vary. Most of the time, she becomes broken emotionally, as expected. She might also kill herself. Or, sometimes, she might become a terrorist and destroy the world that let you die, or just go on revenge serial killing or something."

DV-gata DV型

Domestic Violence type.
"It hurts? That's your fault! Next time learn your lesson and stop looking at other girls!"
When jealous, feeling ignored, etc. uses violence against you. She'll beat you and say it's your fault. This can be either discharging pent-up rage through violence and you just happen to be her favorite punching bag, or deliberately punishing you for doing something she didn't like.
Both cases, unfortunately, are also common in real life.

bouryoku-gata 暴力型

Violence type.
Another name for the "domestic violence" type above. She "uses violence" (bouryoku wo furu 暴力をふる) toward you.

sokubaku-gata 束縛型

Restraints type.
"Let`s stay together forever! You'll never leave my side, not ever again!"
She wants to be with you always, and always, and always, AND ALWAYS, AND ALWAYS. And that means she'll probably kidnap you and lock you into her house so you're forced to stay with her.
There are variations, some lighter, some worse, but the general idea is that she wants you two to be inseparable.

mousou-gata 妄想型

Delusion type.
Similar to the "wrong idea" type above, but far worse. When her insane love is unrequited (for obvious reasons), and you start literally running away from the crazy bitch, she'll think it's because you're embarrassed, and not because you don't want her. Her love distorts the reality she perceives. She sees a bunch of delusions instead.
The delusion type may also be in denial something unpleasant happened. She'll just forget it happened. Her memories may also be replaced with delusions: she'll remember you being extremely nice to her when you were indifferent, you saying you liked her before you even met, or other girls rubbing themselves on you like cheap sluts when all they did was saying "good morning.

jishou-gata 自傷型

Self-harm type.
"Hey... look at me... look at me... look, there's so much blood coming out..."
She harms herself, cutting wrists, etc. in order to get your attention. This often happens when she's ignored. The "dependence" type might evolve into this if she is abandoned.
There are two sub-types to this.
First, the one where she harms herself in secret and has you notice her injuries, then she says "it's nothing to worry about" hoping you worry about it more. This is usually something light like a knee bruise, etc.
Second, the one where she harms herself in your face as a way to say "I'll kill myself if you leave me," forcing you to stay by her side by guilt.

haijo-gata 排除型

Removal type.
"You don't need other people. You have me."
She will remove from your life everyone she thinks you don't need. Which means everyone else. This can include things like excluding your contacts and messages to even murdering everybody who approaches.
This type of yandere has two sub-types:
First, the one that removes people secretly. She sees you hanging with a girl, the next day that girl has mysteriously disappeared. You, a main character, are probably as clueless as a sheet of sudoku in blank about this incident, and the next several incidents like it.
Second, the one that removes people openly. This also ranges from removing messages to killing people. She might be expecting you agree with her, "yeah, you're right, I don't need other people," or she might just want to show you what she's capable of.

shinjuu-gata 心中型

Double Suicide Type
"Let's die together!"
Why be always together in life if you can be forever together for all eternity? This type of yandere will propose what no sane person would: let's die!
Sadly, suicide pacts are a thing. Double suicide, lovers' suicide, too, is a thing. One of the most famous pieces ever, Romeo & Juliet, (spoilers) sort of ended up in a double suicide.
One thing different in an yandere double suicide is that, often, you don't really want to suicide. It's more like she wants you both dead and she'll kill you then herself. Although there are also actual consensual attempted double suicides involving yandere.

jiko-gisei-gata 自己犠牲型

Self-Sacrifice type.
"If it's for you I wouldn't mind dying!"
She'd make any sacrifice for you, as long as it means getting you to love her. She doesn't even mind dying for you or fighting bloody battles, sustaining multiple injuries, etc. as long as it means staying with you.
Unlike the self-harm type, the self-sacrifice type isn't seeking attention with her suicidal behavior. Instead, she wants to make herself useful and support the one she loves.
This is easier to visualize in anime where fighting monsters, etc. is normal. However, this kind of sickness also exists in real life. Some people do sacrifice themselves for a beloved one in an extremely unhealthy and unrewarding way, just because they "love" them.

suuhai-gata 崇拝型

Worship type.
"I'll do anything for you! I'll even kill for you! Please use me however you want!"
She worships you and will do anything for you. Sometimes even without you asking. And more: she doesn't even mind if you love her or not, or what will happen to her. Killing, dying, committing crimes, losing respect of others, she'll do anything it means providing support to your infinite greatness.
This is one of the least-harmful type of yandere since she would never do anything to harm you and will never be in your way. Nonetheless, it's also one of the most depressing types; it makes you feel sorry for the yandere, who thinks of herself less like a person and more like a tool who might get thrown away if she's not useful enough.
The difference between the "worship" type and the "self-sacrifice" type is that the "worship" type is also like the "disappearance" type. The "self-sacrifice" type wants to be useful so she can be loved, the "worship" type doesn't mind if she is not loved back, in fact, she probably thinks she is not worth being loved by the delusive greatness she considers you.
She wouldn't, for example, attack your girlfriend or other girls out of jealousy, but she might attack a girl approaching you because she thinks the girl is stepping out of her boundaries and being presumptuous by daring talk to your greatness without proper respect.

choukyou-gata 調教型

Training type.
"Say you love me... come on, say it. Say you love me. SAY YOU LOVE ME! Good boy! Here's your reward."
(the word choukyou was once only about "training [animals]" or "breaking [animals]." In modern times, it's also used in BDSM contexts, "[master] training [slave]." It has nothing to do with training for sports.)
She'll break you into loving her. Sometimes using torture, a punishment/reward system, brainwashing, etc. This probably involves you getting kidnapped and forced into it, although there might be more subtle ways to accomplish this.

koritsu yuudou-gata 孤立誘導型

Loneliness Induction type.
"Shhh... it's ok. I'm here. You don't need anyone else. You can just count on me."
She will make, induce, you to feel or be alone. By spreading malicious rumors about you that make others alienate you, by murdering your friends and family, etc. Then she'll jump in and present herself as the only one you can count on when you're most fragile mentally and in need of company.
Inducing things that don't make you feel lonely but give some sort of mental damage, trauma, also count as this type. Conversely, if your friends and family get killed on their own and you're alone but she had nothing to do with it, it's not the same thing since she didn't induce it, although an yandere might abuse your condition to get closer to you.
This type is similar to the "dependence" type, except it's not the yandere that's to become dependent on you, it's you that's to become dependent on the yandere.

kyouki-gata 猟奇型

Bizarre-Seeking Type.
"I love you, so... can you give me your fingernails? I want them so I can always have a part of you with me!"
Undeniably the worst type of yandere, she will murder you, and not by accident, not by jealousy, not by revenge. She will murder you because she loves you. And then she'll keep your rotting corpse on bed or preserved inside a glass because there's no way she'd throw you away.
In a sense sane people are better off not even trying to understand, the bizarre-seeking type of yandere is purely insane, mad way beyond explanation.
The word kyouki, used in the type's name, is normally associated with disturbing imagery involving gore, blood and worse stuff. It's also related to "grotesque" art, guro グロ, which's dubbed "pornography involving gore" despite the fact nobody in their sane mind can figure out how the fuck can someone even "fap to this."
Likewise, nobody in their sane mind can relate to the grotesque love of bizarre-seeking yandere. Ranging from murder, mutilation, and maybe something ever worse us mere mortals can't even begin to imagine, their bizarre displays of love can only be summed up by: "what the actual fuck?"

References : https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2016/07/tsundere-kuudere-yandere-meaning.html

[TOMT][2010s][CARTOON]My dad remembers this show he watched with me when I was younger, let's see if you can...
It was an animated kids sitcom about two characters who may have been brothers and they have a business where they try all sorts of things. Their business plan fails at the end of every episode. It may have looked similar to Gumball in its animation and it might've been on Netflix. Its title is in the format "[Name] & [Name]'s [Adjective] [Noun]", and the noun was probably Business. Let me know if you've got a clue!

Compare the pronunciation of proceeds the verb with proceeds the noun. Typically, in English, the stress is placed on the first syllable in nouns and adjectives but on the second in verbs, accordingly, in the UK vaccine, as it's a noun, is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, but in the USA it's pronounced as if it were a verb, with the stress on the second syllable. There are occasional similar eccentricities of US pronunciation, adult, for example, is also pronounced in the USA as if it were a verb. So, two questions: 1. is there an explanation for this that is generally accepted by linguists? 2. which do those in Australia, India, South Africa, etc use, the pronunciation of the UK or of the US?

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.

So I(23m) have dated this girl(27f) for about 4 years now. We were super close for the first couple years, totally inseperable.
I started my own business and it ate a lot of my time and she got upset about it, and eventually she broke up with me because she thought I didn't love her. We got back together and I tried so hard to fix what bothered her, basically a lack of affection and attention.
I was giving her cards and flowers and taking her out to do stuff whenever I could. I tried so hard but she never went back to the way she was before she broke up. It's hard to explain, but she was just...different. less affectionate, less patient, less time to see me. She didn't want to have sex as much, and when we did it seemed like she was uninterested. She would just lay there silently and stare off.
She likes her job stocking shelves at a grocery store and bossing people around and claims to be focused on that, also she does school. I can understand being busy.
Either way, she was just seeming to lose interest. It hurt and she couldn't ever explain it when I'd ask about it. She was fine not seeing me for long periods of time, she works 5 minutes from my house and passes within a mile of it to get home. She used to stop and see me every day, then she saw me less, and less, and less, and eventually it was just a day or two a week.
I have a very high sex drive, and at the beginning of the relationship it seemed hers was higher than mine even. But she stopped wanting sex, she just wasn't interested.
So I eventually got tired of it, and told her it's over. She cried and tried to convince me that she would change and all that. I told her ive explained to her so many times and she had plenty of chances to change, and im tired of knocking on a locked door.
I made an account on a dating app, and met this girl(21f) I worked with a couple years ago.. Always had a crush on her, she's stunning, absolutley adorable and quite a sweetheart. She checks all the boxes for me as far as looks and personality go.
There's just one issue I can't seem to understand.
I don't know how to put it, other than she's just kind of a loser. Like she doesn't do anything other than work in a little pen all day and then eat and scroll on her phone and sleep. She seriously has zero hobbies or interests. She tells me this.
I am a high energy person who's always doing something, I have a hard time sitting still and relaxing and don't even use my phone for more than messages and the internet search function and music.
I think it would be nice to be able to kind of do stuff with my partner and show them things and have them be a little interested. She's just indifferent. She doesn't have any interest in anything. I take her to cool places and she's just like "oh cool". I show her stuff like the other day I got an oxy acetylene torch setup. I get it I get it, it's probably not that interesting to anyone. But she asked me what it was when i told her that I was getting it, so I showed her. She just kinda looked at me set it up and put it away and didn't ask any questions or make any comments. I mean I don't expect her to be all overwhelmed about it but at least say something when your partner tries to show you something they're interested in.
I always take her places and she seems to be bored and doesn't care. It's a little disappointing but it is nice to be with her and she likes to be with me spending time. But she couldn't care less whether we're sitting in the car down the street from her house or we're going walking on a trail or beach or whatever the hell.
I asked her to tell me what she'd like to do, and she told me she doesn't care. I said well that's fine but just make a suggestion. It could be anything, literally just think of a verb and a noun that coherently go together and say it. She absolutley would not. Just keeps saying I don't care you pick I'm fine with whatever.
I'm not trying to drag you around bored to do things you dont care for. I'm bringing you here to spend time with you and it's supposed to be enjoyable.
I told her fine then we will just do nothing until you pick something. It's not that difficult. It's not an impossible task. I'm not asking you to cut a pound of flesh off, just tell me you want to go kick rocks or pick fucking apples or eat peanut butter or climb a tree literally anything.
Maybe she's just being stubborn, but she hasn't suggested anything and it's been 3 days. So we haven't done anything. I haven't even messaged her at all yesterday.
I'm kind of considering getting back with the girl that was with before. I spoke to her yesterday, I just told her I hope she's doing well. She told me she misses me and all the little adventures we used to go on.
I don't know what to do.

I was reading Greek poems (with French translation) for my studying and I encountered this poem, <Γιατί βαθιά μου δόξασα>
The book I read translated it into"Because Deep inside me I glorified.."(Puisqu'au fond de moi j'ai glorifié) and I don't quite understand why "Βαθιά μου" is translated into"deep inside me"
To my knowledge βαθιά is "deep, deeply" and μου is "me, my". I suppose μου is not used as possesive or else there should be a noun in the sentence. And if "μου" is used as indirect pronoun "me" preceding the verb, the sentence should be translated into.."Deeply I glorified/praised me "?? .
And I found the English translation of it is "Because I deeply praised", which is quite similar to French translation.
Could someone please help me understanding why in this sentence, " βαθιά μου" means "I deeply" or "Deep inside me"? Thanks a lot!