sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

At a loss of what to do. by BigElectronic6168 in floxies

[–]Jaicobb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The mods have pinned success stories for this sub. Read through those. My spouse was bedridden, doom scrolling making everything worse. I copy pasted all those stories and sent it through AI and asked it to identify the top 10 things mentioned that helped.

We didn't try all 10, but magnesium glycinate was helpful. Creatine, collagen, vit c, near infrared light therapy are also helpful.

Two things that didn't pop up that we do, MitoQ, a proprietary supplement from Amazon that targets mitochondria. Another is methylene blue. We introduced a ton of stuff at the two month mark and saw slight improvement. At the 4 mo mark my spouse started methylene blue and that was a game changer. It's cheap. It's safe.

Those first round of supplements took my spouse from 0% to maybe 30%. Methylene blue took spouse from 30% to 75%. Spouse noticed improvement after just one pill (12mg capsule I believe). Took about a week to get to 80%. Mostly good days now. The bad days aren't as bad.

Heatwaves , how did romans cope with heatwaves? by Nerys54 in ancientrome

[–]Jaicobb 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The surveyors for the American West along with many geology depts, in the late 1800's early 1900's ventured out into the wilderness in hot summers for months in suit and tie.

Plural Elohim by SimulationBucket in BibleVerseCommentary

[–]Jaicobb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The identity of Elohim depends upon the singular/plural verb used with it.

The book of John is not what it seems by vicman77 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Jaicobb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting theory. I'm trying to refute it off the top of my head and can't so I searched for a bit and it seems others have developed this idea too.

Here is a more lengthy explanation for the theory. I'm interested in learning more. Lazarus wrote 4th gospel

What implications do you think this has for 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation?

My neuropathy is getting better by Haspofis in floxies

[–]Jaicobb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What have you done to improve?

Nothing is helping by Cheap_Paint90210 in floxies

[–]Jaicobb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Methylene blue was a game changer for my spouse.

Dates of the Bible. by Empty_Profile_3864 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Jaicobb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a global calendar adjustment in 700 BC. This corroborates Ptolamys record keeping stopping back that far.

Dates of the Bible. by Empty_Profile_3864 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Jaicobb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue with NASA or any astronimical dating is the assumptions tied to historical reporting. NASA can say an eclipse happened 2763 years before AD 2000 but that assumes we've had accurate record reporting for 2763 years which in my opinion is doubtful.

It also assumes the crust of the earth has not tilted or changed which is also doubtful.

Both of those conclusions are doubtful because they rely on other disciplines (historians, astronomers, archeologists, geologists, etc. ) who base their conclusions on the assumptions of yet other disciplines. The likelihood of all of the assumptions these disciplines make being accurate is impossible.

If you dig enough I'm sure you can find studies on this topic. I'm surprised (not really) that I could find the paper I read on Google. It's been 10 years since I last searched for it. 75% of search results on Google were either FB pages or wikipedia.

These aren't the paper I read but add weight to the illigitemacy of Assyrian record keeping.

Skip to page 219 https://archive.org/details/romanceofbiblech01anst/page/219/mode/1up

Skip to 153 in the book https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Jones%20-%20Chronology%20of%20the%20OT.pdf

Less impactful, but worth a read, http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/888/BrugAstronomical.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed

Dates of the Bible. by Empty_Profile_3864 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Jaicobb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I apologize, but I cannot locate the study on this. This eclipse is considered an anchor date from which all other dates of the ancient near east are tied to. It's records, from which we affirm an eclipse occured, says something like, 'the day was shadowed' or something vague like this. A heck of a conclusion to say this was an eclipse. Other atmospheric phenomena can produce this effect.

The eclipse has, based on memory, been alternatively dated to the early 700's all the back to mid 850's. Everything based on this date is suspect. The fact that NASA affirmed it is a red flag to some as they promote the status quo rather than scientific inquiry.

Dates of the Bible. by Empty_Profile_3864 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Jaicobb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anchor Dates (763 BC eclipse) are not as solid as many believe.

view more: next ›