Quite interesting - Mayan day/nights and earth periods

[unity100]

harvest is not a spread out event.

Then why does Ra say "as harvest is completed...", implying spread out? By the way, 'event' is your word. Ra never uses 'event' to refer to the harvest. They do refer to it as a process, however.

notice that not spreading to a time period of years would not mean that it would take an instant.

I've touched on each of these points, showing that you're interpretation is only one interpretation. You didn't touch on any of my interpretations, you just said "I don't know why you don't see things in my interpretation."

no you havent explained how something that is imminent, and given for a particular year as date can be interpreted so wildly that a generation can comfortably live and pass without harvest happening.

i touched all of your interpretations however, as you can see from what you responded to in remainder of your post.

The fact that it is open to interpretation is the only point I need to prove.

no its not sufficient. you are trying to prove an interpretation window so great that, generations could come and pass through it. there would totally be no need for any kind of time consideration for such an error margin,

and,

Again, "the striking of the hour" meaning "in a moments time" is YOUR interpretation of that statement.

it is not my interpretation - in those q/as, the subject is relevant to something happening in this planet's time scale, and all the information being calculated and given are given for the conditions of this planet.

if, an allowance like 40 years was possible, this would total to an entire 70 years from 1981, and Ra would not state that anything that extends lifespan of an entity would be useless, in the subject of 'integratron' machine.

"The harvest is now"...30 years ago...40 years is just 10 more years added on to that. 40 years isn't really that much compared to 75,000 years, that's your own opinion and your own interpretation you seem to insist is the only correct one.

It was expressed as "being now" 30 years ago, and you're saying that 40 years is "whopping." Why would Ra say "harvest is now" when it was in 30 years, and how is 40 years so much larger than 30 years? You don't know what Ra would have mentioned or wouldn't have in different situations anyways, you just have your own interpretation of what they did mention.

i see, you were not adding 40 years error margin from 2011, but 1980. even though much more logical than a whopping 40 years from 2011, its still off :

something that can throw off with 10 years of error margin in one direction should have an error margin also backwards. with that , the harvest could also have happened 10 years before 1981. however no such possibilities and probabilities were mentioned in any of the q/as, despite numerous possibilities were examined in detail, and likely ones were outlined in numerous subjects :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#8

or in general :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?search_...&ss=1&sc=1

what the above basically explains is that, whenever there was something that would take from x to y years, or happen in x years or similar, they were named. like the transition of this planet from 3d to 4d being likely in 100 to 700 years.

if there was any possibility of 1 to 10 years deviation for harvest, it would be named as such, not just said 'in 2011'.

let me sum it up again :

- whenever there are likely possibility scenarios for something, ra mentions them.
- no such possibilities were outlined for harvest but year 2011.

It could easily only happen once a person has left space/time and entered time/space.

It is existing to a far greater extent int time/space than in space/time...something is happening in time/space and not in space time. Very clearly spelled out. Although I have no doubt that you have yet another interpretation which you think is the only correct possibility regarding this statement.

however then there would be no need to say that 'those who are in time/space will be included in the harvest'. for such a mention of including to be valid and necessary, there needs to be something needing including. and including those in time/space would mean they were included with some other group - that happens to be those in space/time. this is not an 'interpretation'. its simple logic.

That's what I meant, but even further, it's your own interpretation that something happening in time/space would have to effect us directly, immediately, and noticeably in space/time. Something can exist/happen in time/space without happening in space/time, according to Ra:

At this nexus the green-ray environment exists to a far greater extent in time/space than in space/time.

that quote passes in the subject of the forming 4d sphere, and it pertains to physicality of that sphere. not being able to affect or not able to affect anything else. moreover, it is not told anywhere that 4d sphere is not affecting anything here - on the contrary, there are ones living in that 4d sphere, shaping, forming, and getting affected by it - the 3-4d body incarnates.

Edgar Cayce had some predictions not come true...and again, you don't know what Ra considers approximate. You don't know what Ra would mention or wouldn't mention in specific situations. It could be 40 years. It's your opinion that it's not. Your own interpretation of Ra's words which you feel is the only correct one.

we know what Ra considers approximate, because when Ra gives out numbers pertaining to our own planet, they give these based on our own planet. not their perception and estimates of time. this holds true for anything regarding date and time ranging from the time given for maldek's destruction to start of 3d, to atlantis sinking to yahweh intervention and moses.

you cant 'interpret' 75,000 years. or, you cant 'interpret' 1600 BC. these are numeric dates.

It's your interpretation that Ra was simply clarifying that they would ALSO get included, but it's my interpretation that if that were the case, Ra would just say "at that nexus all will be harvested."

you know that continually making attributions to something being someone else's 'interpretation' doesnt change linguistics or structures of language ?

if it was a 'given that they are included in the all', ra would just say it as it was, and 'all would get harvested'. whenever there are details, ra mentions them, and in this case there is a detail, apparently, concerning being incarnate and disincarnate during harvest.

But I see a lot of ambiguity in Ra's words you do not, and I don't feel like my opinion is the only right one. It could be wrong, and I'm okay with that.

it is curious that you see a lot of ambiguity in a material by a source which gone to extreme ends to not be ambiguous, and has been ambiguous when necessary by directly stating it.

Sure I can see us stepping up int he present with the world in its current state. Why would you project that I cannot do so? Can't speak for everyone, but I am genuinely happy.

or are you ....

you seem to think it would be something that could happen without disturbing you and your life in drastic sense you wouldnt like.

Do you not see that this is your shadow? The 'fear of death' or 'fear of disruption' or 'fear of discomfort' is all something you continually project onto others. Perhaps some day you will bother to address these themes within yourself? Kinda makes for efficient use of your catalyst, now doesn't it?

im not the one who is going to extreme lengths to dub a researcher with an array of adjectives ranging from ambiguous to charlatan, in quite a reactionary and flamed manner, due to his research suggesting disruption at a near date. even if we put calleman aside, i have seen you react similarly to anyone or any discussion which involved disruption at a near date. moreover, you have mentioned various things about your personal life before, like in the above, therefore, i had arrived at such an impression.

as for me, i am not at all afraid of death. actually, i would have no regrets if i died tomorrow.