Neither angels nor Gods, but an alien team. The preface to an awaited fall of religions.

Author: IlDiavolo
Bible
angels
gods
alien team

Posts

Total: 150
#31
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
In Isaiah 6:2 the angels had six wings.  Seraphim is a type of angel. 

Translations are different from interpretations.  The translations are language from one culture being communicated into a different culture. 

Interpretations are NOT translations. They are an attempt to say what the meaning of the text is - as opposed to what the language was saying. 

And since there are two aspects here it is important that every modern translation of the bible- uses the same underlying text.  It is primarily the KJV which actually uses a different underlying text.  

Ezekiel is not about spaceships. He is describing the ark of the covenant within the temple.  Ezekiel is the predominant place in the Old Testament to understand who the "Son of Man" is; lo and behold - it is a man, a priest. 

Hence, the book describes the high priests' vision of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple.  
#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Hinduism has four armed people.

Obviously from another planet.
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Hinduism has four armed people.

It is symbolic of what we call today  "multi tasking". Vic. Something Mrs Stephen says I am hopeless at.


Obviously from another planet.

Have you ever heard the reference  to something called 'Vimana'  in Indian religion, Vic? 


#34
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
This is religion forum Zee
We are being sensible here talking about gods and angels and shit. 

And up you pop talking about people with , 
what was it again you said ?  
four arms. 
Thats right. 
Your talking about People with four arms. 

Do Please stay on topic. 

Hey Zed. 
Have you noticed how stephen doesn't get sarcasm. ???
Thats suss.hey ?
 
He MUST KNOW that you've heard and know about Vinana .
Thats so sus that he asked you that. 

Warning warning.  Take note. 

The other day in one of my post i said. 

One word
( double standards ) 
Stephen fires back with.
Thats two words deb. 





#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I can't figure out what you're trying to tell me. I don't know much about the Sumerian civilization.

And the reason for that is that I don't want to make up your mind for you, although you appear to be convinced without any influence  from me..


 I don't know much about the Sumerian civilization.

That is a pity. It is probably the only way that you can begin to understand what is going on in the Old Testament and the nature of the "gods".
As I have mentioned Mauro Biglino & Paul Willis; a Church Deacon, have come on the shoulders of giants and are quite late to the "ancient alien/gods" party. To their credit they do further the theory and this may well be down to the fact that more and more information has and is still being unearthed and discovered  technology and the personal computer  since,  for instance, Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Sitchin, Von Däniken had first posed the idea of "ancient alien god" theory. We can now reaseach information at the speed of light where as the likes of my self  and those authors I mention spent  years in libraries and other places of research and our faces stuck between the pages of books.

As I said, I don't claim Darwin's theory is not plausible.

It is very plausible, up to the point. And from what I can make out, the Earth and its living creatures (however it & they came about) was doing quite well on its own before the "gods came down" and appear to have fkd everything up.

What I understand is that these aliens handed over all their knowledge to their enslaved "Adams" before leaving the planet, so as a consequence these "Adams" started to do what their fathers did with them, which is enslave people. I guess this modus operandi has survived ever since.

Well this is where the Sumerian text once again come in handy. They make it categorically clear why they created the Adama.  And further reading they explain why they had to ' hand down kingship ',  which can be explained in easier terms as - they needed a manager/ go between a King.

It goes something like this. They were beginning to become outnumbered hence losing control. The "gods" in their first attempt at controlling their creation had already divided the Earth into sections of twelve regions/houses where a "god" ruled over a region and one "god" became "god" of the gods. This too is alluded to in the Old Testament.  You may well ask at this point, well who chose the "god of gods"? Simply answer is, they took it in turns. When the celestial clock/ Zodiac crossed over from one house to another this was the "signs in the sky" for  the "god" of the incoming house to rule.  You may well understand by now that this was the reason the people were divided into 12 tribes/ houses. And it was eventually at these crossing over points that the wars of "gods and men" began. And for the reason I have explained many times on this forum the last being here>

But I am running the risk here of causing you information overload, because there is a lot to take in.

But let me go back to what I said here- they needed a manager/ go between/ a King. It is here that causes confusion for many.  Priests to begin with were nothing more than gofer's to the "gods". They had nothing much to do with the general population. They were, to put it simply,  selected from among men to run "god" a bath, do his washing and cleaning and other household chores.
 Those they called prophets selected from among the priests - one from each house were the link between gods and men and came with  "words from god" direct. When the population once again grew unmanageable it was at this point a king was selected by "god" and "kingship was handed down".  King/s were  in direct charge of the people but under the directions and commands of the "god" of his house, the  Prophets became the go-betweens between the god and the King. Paul Wallis in your link alludes to exactly this  saying of  Ezekiel " keep your people in line";  to keep them more manageable, HERE>
 38 minutes in.

Yes, I did but I still think it over. It looks like you're an enthusiast of the Zodiac but I can't tell yet.

You'll have noticed then that  in my last two paragraphs that I have shown you why Astronomy /astrology were of high importance to the "gods". It marked time, a celestial clock, the zodiac calendar in the sky that only "ancient astronauts" needed to know. Jesus alludes to the " heavenly" clock often. 
And now you know why I am "enthusiast of the Zodiac". It because the "gods" were. And they had to be because everything depended on it as far as they were concerned.

 I shall leave it there for now.

 All good fun, eh

#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey Zed. 
Have you noticed how stephen doesn't get sarcasm. ???
Thats suss.hey ?
 

Warning warning.  Take note. 

The other day in one of my post i said. 

One word
( double standards ) 
Stephen fires back with.
Thats two words deb. 

 Yep, its called sarcasm Deb, my mate. And said in jest too.😀

#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Deb-8-a-bull
Yep.

They all saw them flying machines.

So we have to  give some credence to the hypothesis.

Would be doublestandards otherwise.


Though funny how none of them saw the same aliens.

And funny how none of those aliens bothered to come back.

Must be better planets elsewhere.
#38
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep. They all saw them flying machines.

So we have to  give some credence to the hypothesis.

As did the Aztec, Mayan & Inca located at the other end of the Earth.



Though funny how none of them saw the same aliens.
" Alien" . Pretty modern word. As I have said many times, the ancients simply called them Lords. They had always known them . And it would take me a while to explain my own theory as to why the first generations had known them as nothing unusual while later generations were in absolute wonder of them to the point of being frightened of them.  But if there be any credence to the theory it may have been the case that they may had been coming and going at specific designated times.
From my understanding of what we get from the Sumerians,  these lords/ "aliens" had a "longer count to their orbit" on the planet of their origin  than the orbit of Earths count.  That is to say,  to begin with they went by a different clock to us. Hence the reason they had to keep an watchful eye on the "heavens" and their obsession with the movements of the "heavenly bodies" Astronomy.  This celestial clock it seems, dictated just about everything that happened and still happens here earth;
I  suppose we could say ;  "on earth as it is in heaven".  <see what I did there Vic ? 😁




And funny how none of those aliens bothered to come back.

Haven't come back - yet, in our time - as far as we mere working class skivvies know, that is.  My theory is as I mentioned above , that it may well be everything to do with the celestial clock. To simplify;  they have a longer orbit, they can only come and go when their own position in obit brought them into range. So, if say one orbit to complete last over a thousand years it would be only at this time they could come... and go because they were near enough to make the journey, . And coincidently even the New Testament suggests something along those lines.


Must be better planets elsewhere.

Or worse.
 Maybe as I mentioned above, that they has fkd up their own place to a point that they had to find another place to fk up? Which, if I remember correctly the Sumerians seem to suggest was the reason?

Anyway. We got high winds  (seem to be dying down though) , it freezing cold and insisting down with rain here, Vic.  How about Wales? 


Topic's author
#39
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
In Isaiah 6:2 the angels had six wings.  Seraphim is a type of angel. 
How many times do I have to say it? ANGELS DON'T HAVE WINGS IN THE BIBLE!! This is just a made-up stuff. Artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, Rafael, and many others put wings on angels because they levitate and fly according to the bible.

You see now how manipulated the bible is? But I don't expect you to change your mind since dogmatic people by definition are close minded.
Topic's author
#40
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
It is very plausible, up to the point. And from what I can make out, the Earth and its living creatures (however it & they came about) was doing quite well on its own before the "gods came down" and appear to have fkd everything up.
As I said, the Darwin's theory is very much in doubt since it can't explain how the species evolved. I can believe the adaptation of species ocurred as Darwin said, but not in the case of the human who is not adapted to any environment in the earth. As to the time these aliens arrived to fuck it all up, well, we don't know. There are UFO paintings in the caves so this says that the aliens were here even before the great ancient civilizations started off.

Well this is where the Sumerian text once again come in handy. They make it categorically clear why they created the Adama.  And further reading they explain why they had to ' hand down kingship ',  which can be explained in easier terms as - they needed a manager/ go between a King.

It goes something like this. They were beginning to become outnumbered hence losing control. The "gods" in their first attempt at controlling their creation had already divided the Earth into sections of twelve regions/houses where a "god" ruled over a region and one "god" became "god" of the gods. This too is alluded to in the Old Testament.  You may well ask at this point, well who chose the "god of gods"? Simply answer is, they took it in turns. When the celestial clock/ Zodiac crossed over from one house to another this was the "signs in the sky" for  the "god" of the incoming house to rule.  You may well understand by now that this was the reason the people were divided into 12 tribes/ houses. And it was eventually at these crossing over points that the wars of "gods and men" began. And for the reason I have explained many times on this forum the last being here>

But I am running the risk here of causing you information overload, because there is a lot to take in.

But let me go back to what I said here- they needed a manager/ go between/ a King. It is here that causes confusion for many.  Priests to begin with were nothing more than gofer's to the "gods". They had nothing much to do with the general population. They were, to put it simply,  selected from among men to run "god" a bath, do his washing and cleaning and other household chores.
 Those they called prophets selected from among the priests - one from each house were the link between gods and men and came with  "words from god" direct. When the population once again grew unmanageable it was at this point a king was selected by "god" and "kingship was handed down".  King/s were  in direct charge of the people but under the directions and commands of the "god" of his house, the  Prophets became the go-betweens between the god and the King. Paul Wallis in your link alludes to exactly this  saying of  Ezekiel " keep your people in line";  to keep them more manageable, HERE>
 38 minutes in.
Feel free to release all the info you want, this is what this thread was opened for. In fact, I perceive that this story is not new to me. I guess it has something to do with the "blue blood" of the royalty, families that didn't want to mix their blood in order to hold the power. And it's well known that the orthodox jews (and maybe the ones not so orthodox) still do the same thing, they don't mix their blood, they think they're special.

There are many thing I would like to know because I don't think it's a concidence that the jews own the global financial system.
Topic's author
#41
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
No kidding, Vic, but you're the most skeptic person I've ever seen in my fucking life.

Jesus!! ROFL
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@IlDiavolo
Jesus!! HaHa.

As you and Stephen point out, and as I never actually disagree with. The Alien intervention hypothesis, is a valid hypothesis.

So not so sceptical in that respect.


But:

Here we are, presented with a race of super-beings capable of interstellar travel, yet they leave  us with sketchy images chiselled onto lumps of rock and sketchy second hand written accounts. Accounts so inconclusive that it makes a mockery of the super-intelligence, that it purports to describe. Nope, show me an astounding example of  their super-technology and you might get me interested. All that piles of chiselled stones suggest to me is that humans had mastered the art of stone chiselling. I would expect at least digital technology and composite materials from super-beings.

And given Zed's Law of universal sameness, I'm definitely very sceptical of the "Orbit" excuse Stephen. Light years of separation conquered, and yet these super-intelligent folk are bogged down by a comparatively slight difference in planetary orbits. We sort of know how a planet needs to interact with a star in order for it to be able to sustain life.

So,  seeding is a more likely option, and fits nicely with what we know about species development, species similarities and developmental time scales.

Nonetheless still begs the question as to why life developed, wherever it developed.

Isn't it as likely to develop here as it is anywhere else?

And isn't it also reasonable to suggest, that as Earthbound  intelligence develops, then so hypotheses will also inevitably develop from the highly implausible into the more sensible.

Nonetheless as we are all too aware, old implausibility has a tendency to persist within the human database.

All aspects of evolution are slow, relative to a lifespan.
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Lets clear this up before I go any further.

IlDiavolo wrote @ zedvictor4 : No kidding, Vic, but you're the most skeptic person I've ever seen in my fucking life.Jesus!! ROFL

Well you must have missed this posted back at post 11
Stephen wrote: Scepticism is an excellent tool for any researcher.  You appear to be confusing it with outright dismissal which neither "zed" nor I have done. #11

So with that hopefully cleared up: 


 I can believe the adaptation of species ocurred as Darwin said, but not in the case of the human who is not adapted to any environment in the earth. 

 And I agreed with you on that point a few times. In fact it was me that said so first on your thread;
 So to repeat my self again:

Stephen wrote: I agree in part. Where humans stand, evolution for me only appears to make sense up to a point. And then in my opinion, there seems to be a giant leap. It's as if humans, that is to say" homo sapien sapien or upright thinking man , just seemingly appears out nowhere and living in cities of Mesopotamia including Uruk, Akadia Babylon and others.#8

 To further that point we have to first ask - what are to me - some basic questions. Such as; If we are to go with Darwin's theory, why did man have to lose all his body hair only to then be forced to go out and kill another animal for its coast? Why are we the only animal that needs fire to keep our bodies warm? Even the Nomads of the some of the earths hottest places need fire to keep warm at night?  Man in my opinion is probably the most ill equipped creature on earth to be able to survive out in the open in its natural state. darwin didn't answer these questions and neither has Sir David Attenborough to my knowledge.

What you do not seem to appreciate is the fact that what you are looking at and aiming to prove is a deep, deep subject with many aspects to it and not just "religion". 
 For instance have you tried researching the human genome? Because this is  integral  to what you are claiming and are hoping to prove. And, depending how serious you decide to take your theory/hypothesis, there are these components to consider  geography, archelogy, petrology, mineralogy, art, nature, geology, physics, ancient history, astronomy, astrology medicine, the space age, monetary system  and many more including the Bible. I would recommend that your starting point would be historian Josephus. Hence my 40+ years of  scrutinising and questioning the bible. And these are just a few thing you need to know about when coming to the table with your beliefs, ideas and theories.

Over a week ago when you were contemplating creating this thread I did say to you HERE>  Stephen wrote:   You obviously have to be prepared for push back and understand your subject yourself. #35

There are UFO paintings in the caves so this says that the aliens were here even before the great ancient civilizations started off.

I have covered this aspect in my own research in threads  I have created on this forum.
There are many medieval paintings hanging in galleries around the world that depict what we can only describe as "space ships". The most famous that I can recall is the 18century  Aert De Gelder’s ‘Baptism of Christ’, painted in 1710. And if that is not a space craft, then I would like to know what others would call it?


 I guess it has something to do with the "blue blood" of the royalty, families that didn't want to mix their blood in order to hold the power. 

 Something along those lines. But the mixing of the blood / houses came much, much later and usually as part of peace treaty.


There are many thing I would like to know because I don't think it's a concidence that the jews own the global financial system.

Who knows? But that is going far away from the point of your own thread. So lets try to remain on track. For now, You are posing genetic intervention in the creation of human beings by ancient alien gods.  From what you believe of your theories so far, what are your conclusions and how and why did you come to them? 
#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
-->
@<<<Stephen>>>
@IlDiavolo
Jesus!! HaHa. As you and Stephen point out, and as I never actually disagree with. The Alien intervention hypothesis, is a valid hypothesis.

So not so sceptical in that respect.
I have , Vic, reminded IlDiavolo of a comment I made to him over 30 posts ago. 
Stephen wrote: Scepticism is an excellent tool for any researcher.  You appear to be confusing it with outright dismissal which neither "zed" nor I have done. #11



And given Zed's Law of universal sameness, I'm definitely very sceptical of the "Orbit" excuse Stephen.
And so you should be very sceptical. My explanation would be the actual orbit. For this I would refer to Kepler's First Law: each planet's orbit about the Sun is an ellipse. The Sun's center is always located at one focus of the orbital ellipse. The Sun is at one focus. The planet follows the ellipse in its orbit, meaning that the planet to Sun distance is constantly changing as the planet goes around its orbit.
i.e the planet  of origin of the "ancient gods" has is an elliptical orbit (a nearest to and furthest from) . It must have the biggest orbit in our solar system.  The Sumerians called it Niberu. 



So,  seeding is a more likely option, and fits nicely with what we know about species development, species similarities and developmental time scales.

I agree. But as I have suggested, Darwin's theory all seems feasible until we get to Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong.


Nonetheless still begs the question as to why life developed, wherever it developed.

Yep, one of the unsolved mysteries. Fantastic, isn't it Vic.


Isn't it as likely to develop here as it is anywhere else?

Indeed. As I have always maintained. It would be ignorant not to mention pretty arrogant of us to believe that we were the only species of living organisms in the solar system/universe.



All aspects of evolution are slow, relative to a lifespan.

This is a good point. Evolution aside  and as far as the OP is concerned, life span is a bit of a stumbling block for any researcher of the bible and its stories. Humans do not life long enough to witness the actual time that  the changes from one house to another occur. But some do. 
I will get back to you on that when I have a bit more time, Vic. But for now, from my own research , these changes always seem to happen when the planets are in chaos. That is to say  when more than one of the planets in our solar system are close  to and/or aligned with our Earth they have a massive and destructive devastating effect on the Earth. I am convinced , Vic that it has everything to do with the "signs of the age". 

Jesus said when speaking to the false priests:
"and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

And Jesus also said when asked what signs  to look for: 

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.

 On earth as it is in heaven , Vic. Utter chaos.


#45
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,235
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

For those reviewing these posts 1000 years from now, there is no Human life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth.
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
 there is no Human life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth.

Correct.
#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Wars and earthquakes.

Sort of happening now.

Sort of always happening.
#48
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Sort of always happening.

Very true. 

From memory I can say this;

 My point is the cause of these natural disasters are caused by other planets in close proximity to Earth. We know for instance that the moon has an effect on earths tides. Gravitational pull.  This along with just another one or two  planets coming close enough to have the same effect x three stretching and pulling our planet in all directions causes a lot of destruction. These are cyclical events and happen at certain time periods and sometimes ages apart.
On top of this it has to be taken into account Earths own orbit that is also elliptical - nearest to and furthest away.

Our own planet Earth never returns to the same place. It retards 1 arc degree every 72 years.  On top of this Earth has a "wobble" on its axis,  if you can imagine a spinning top slowing down and if I remember correctly (don't hold me to it) this too takes 72 years to complete  one circular "wobble" this give us the "celestial age" the Earth is in.
 Take all of the above happening at the same time and we have chaos on Earth with many of the "natural" disaster coming thick and fast as if all at once and on top of one  another.
 Climate change is caused by the retardation of the Earths orbit, ushering in an ice age  at its furthest point away and warmer Earth at its closest point. I could break this down further but I am too idle to go rummaging through my books, Vic.  But bare in mind what it must have been like for those in the time of the ancients with no emergency services or aid agencies to rely and fall back on. And all the while not knowing what the fk caused it?

  As I mentioned above to IlDiavolo   #44 , the study of religion/ the bible and the ancients is no easy subject,  it goes very deep and covers many fields. And depends on interest and determination of he that is doing the searching.
If one sets out to prove genetic manipulation by ancient " gods" then the place to start would be to research DNA?,   something people of my age had no chance of doing  growing up. The chain hadn't even been discovered, but now the sequence has been tracked and mapped. 

But as  I keep saying, we are in the 21st century now with information at our finger tips. We can access information with a click. And to think the "gods" or one of them at least, didn't want us to partake  of the tree of knowledge. There are times I feel I can agree with them because for some , ignorance really is bliss. But for me, I was never the type to settle for the first answer I receive.


#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,381
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Interesting stuff Stephen.


At the moment I'm reading The Body by Bill Bryson.

Full of interesting facts.

One in particular, reminding me of something that I'd read before.

DNA can persist for many hundreds of years,

Think of the possibilities.
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
In Isaiah 6:2 the angels had six wings.  Seraphim is a type of angel. 
How many times do I have to say it? ANGELS DON'T HAVE WINGS IN THE BIBLE!! This is just a made-up stuff. Artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, Rafael, and many others put wings on angels because they levitate and fly according to the bible.

You see now how manipulated the bible is? But I don't expect you to change your mind since dogmatic people by definition are close minded.
You can say it ad finitem for all I care. It doesn't make it true. 

Isaiah 6 is very clear. And it was written long before Da Vinci, Rafael and others came along. 

Why don't you explain what Isaiah 6 is referring to if it is not wings?  Please produce some kind of evidence for your nonsense. 

The bible, I concede, during times of any translation is going to come with the baggage of the day.  Baptism for example changed from pouring and aspersion to submersion.     This is going to have an impact upon how people understand it.  Is it manipulation? Possibly. I think the KJV for example was intentionally written to refute the growing reformed polity which had an anti-absolute monarchy theme.  The Geneva Bible was very popular until then in Europe and Britain. 

I am not closed minded - I just want you to produce something more than - "you are a dogmatist". Perhaps what might be helpful if you can show how the Isaiah Hebrew Text has changed?  That might be nice.  If they are not wings, then what are they? 


#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting stuff Stephen.

I find it all extremally captivating, Vic. 


At the moment I'm reading The Body by Bill Bryson.
Just had a quick read of the synopsis. Looks interesting..

The section concerning the brain caught my eye.  

 Anyway. It looks like a spring morning here , Vic. And its pub for me to day. 
Have a nice day my mate.
Topic's author
#52
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
You are posing genetic intervention in the creation of human beings by ancient alien gods.  From what you believe of your theories so far, what are your conclusions and how and why did you come to them? 
Some conclusions that I came to about this subject:

  • The human being has been produced in a lab using genetic engineering. Why do I think so? Because this theory explains many things the Darwin's theory can't. As I said, the human is not adapted to any environment of the earth, on the contrary, he has all the characteristics of a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism). Besides, the ancient manuscripts give us a hint about it. I would also say that some contactees, like the ufologist Sixto Paz, were told so by the aliens. According to them, the elohim of the bible were the genetic engineers. As to what happened before that event, I really don't know, but to me it's really impossible that life in this planet came about out of nothing.
  • To me, it's unknown why the aliens created the man. The sumerian mythology says that the ancient gods created the human being to do the hard job while they enjoy a luxury life. And that's not far fetched since they would probably behave like us (we have similar genetic code), they can have an evil side. But I also think that they left this earth because somehow they realized they fucked it up as you said, which is a pretty normal human behavior to act with principles and moral. We're like them, so it's probably that they're looking on us as much as we look on the wild life in this planet. We don't intervene the wild life because we think we have to let the nature do the job when an animal kills another one to survive. Although, we intervene when it's just necesary, like when we need to know more about the animals so we shot them with sedative and take them to the research lab, that would be the reason of the abductions by the aliens. This is a conclusion based on an analogy of behaviors. I would also like to add here the version of the ufologist Sixto Paz which is worth our attention. He says that the aliens created us because they wanted to know how they evolved. According to the aliens, they reached a high level of evolution sacrificing the capability of having emotions, they are emotionless. So by creating us they think it's possible to reach a high level of evolution without sacrificing the emotions, which is the reason the aliens always suggest love, compassion and care of others.

Topic's author
#53
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
 As I said, the human is not adapted to any environment of the earth, 

I think that it was me that said that HERE>
Stephen Wrote: Man in my opinion is probably the most ill equipped creature on earth to be able to survive out in the open in its natural state. #43


According to them, the elohim of the bible were the genetic engineers.

Maybe. The Sumarians tell us a lot about doctors, which could cover a very large field. The  Lord  "Enki/Ea  and his wife Ninhursa we are told were "the physicians" and responsible for creating  "a primitive worker".

The sumerian mythology says that the ancient gods created the human being to do the hard job while they enjoy a luxury life. 

Yes. I told you that above and also told you that this bible also alludes to this. Here #8 and I also said HERE>  "I can guarantee you this, if the bible is to be believed even in part, the biblical god gives absolutely no reason whatsoever for creating THE Adam other than to toil & till the land. And ask yourself what does "till" in this BIBLICAL sense mean?  You will find a clue here> Genesis 2:11-13.#11


 they [the gods]reached a high level of evolution sacrificing the capability of having emotions, they are emotionless. 

Not according to the Sumerians or the bible. Some were malevolent and some benevolent.  Where-as  the OT bible appears, on the surface at least, to concentrate and focus on one war mongering, murdering sadistic and jealous psychopathic "god" that believes human life is cheap and will kill men, women, and children simply on a wager- see the short story of Job where this particular "god" would murder 10 children at the drop of a hat for a bet>>     https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201&version=NIV     The NT clearly speaks of different entity altogether.

And this is why I will always maintain that if the bible is to be believed at all, then the "god"  of the New Testamant that Jesus speaks about simply cannot be the same "god" of the Old Testamant. 

As I have explained above,  it appears that it was a new "god" for the new age as I explained above.



#55
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Thanks for your response. At least I see what you mean now. 

It is presumptive on the idea that Cherubim and Seraphim are not angels.  

The Church has always maintained that Cherubim, Seraphim, and even Arch Angels are all types of spiritual beings, that are distinct from God.  And are different types of angels.  Hence, why you will find Christians disagreeing with you. 

Interestingly, other cultures within the OT times did have beings that had wings. And curious that the author of the article you produced somehow mentioned this even to the point he said it was unusual that the Hebrew culture did not. 

Angels did appear on many occasions looking like men.  Although some looked stronger than men. Take Gabriel in Daniel. He looked like a man - and yet had eyes like torches.  If they were just like men, why is it that on almost every occasion they had to tell people to "not be afraid"? 

Paul's remarks that people had unknowingly entertained angels seem to be at odds with those who are afraid of angels. 

All we can say is that at times angels looked like men and at times were ordinary in appearance and at other times were scary.  Certainly, if they didn't want to look ordinary and they wanted to give an appearance of being important, they had that capacity as well. Take Abraham's visit with the three angels as an example. 

None of this is to suggest that cherubim and seraphim are not types of angels.  The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of God both gave visible pictures of these creatures.  Angel means messenger.  The book of Hebrews distinguishes between angels and God and between angels and humans. 

I see the Seraphim as a type of angel.  Despite your article's assessment - these creatures do function as angels.  Protection is a function of angels. Being a messenger is a function of angels. Being visible is also a function.  And being invisible is too. Did every angel have a wing? I don't know. Not every angel is a generic angel and not every angel is a cherubim or seraphim or arch angel. 

What we do know is that God created - and that the angels or whatever you want to call them - are creatures.  

Thanks for the articles. I appreciate you took the time - and for that I thank you. 

Topic's author
#56
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
It's not difficult to realize that ancient people perceived the reality in a very different way than we do. It all comes down to knowledge and level of conciousness. How do you think the ancient people would describe a pilot that get off an airplane that has just landed? Or even better, a man with a jet suit? Do they have wings?
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's not difficult to realize that ancient people perceived the reality in a very different way than we do. It all comes down to knowledge and level of conciousness. How do you think the ancient people would describe a pilot that get off an airplane that has just landed? Or even better, a man with a jet suit? Do they have wings?
People in times past worked using what is often called the "language of appearance". 

And how would they describe a person who looks like a man who has wings and flies? 

Since I don't agree that there were aeroplanes in the ancient past, I don't think speculating about how they would describe them would assist in this discussion. 

I don't disagree of course that an ancient man attempting to describe something modern would be difficult.  Yet it would seem to me that such a quest is putting the cart before the horse. 

Modern People look for instance into the Bible and see things they don't understand. Or the things that the ancient man is describing remind them of something from our time and so - they take 2 + 3 and come up with the answer they want.   But that's not good reasoning. It's pretty bad logic actually. That's why there is so much confusion over the Book of Revelation. The book of Revelation describes events that have mostly already taken place. And it is doing so using imagery and OT language. 

The Ancient Hebrews described a bat as a bird because it flew.  They didn't use our scientific classification system.  They had their own.  

How is someone supposed to describe a man that has wings and flies?  I suppose we might label them a superhero.  Or perhaps they had cartoons and comic strips? 

To simply speculate it must be aliens is well,  intriguing, but no closer to knowing the truth. 
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,344
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
I did say above I was attempting things from memory and said to you:


"    I remember correctly (don't hold me to it) this too takes 72 years to complete  one circular "wobble" this give us the "celestial age" the Earth is in.#48

My memory wasn't too bad as it turns out, Vic.

What I was attempting to explain to you was what is known as Procession, that will be the "wobble".  As an observer from Earth pinpoints the Sun on a fixed date such as the 1st day of spring against the zodiac constellations that act as a backdrop in space (the heavens). Caused by the fact that the Earths' axis is inclined (tilted) relatively to it plain of around the Sun, this retardation/Procession is as i mentioned relatively small- in terms of human lifespans: in 72 years the shift in the zodiac is only just 1° of the 360° celestial circle.
 
"Since the zodiac circle surrounding the band in which the Earth and other planets orbit around the Sun was divided  into 12 house, each take up one twelfth of the full circle or a celestial space of 30°. So takes Earth years 2,160 - 72x30 - to retard through the of the zodiac house. That is to say, if an astronomer on Earth has been observing (as they do today) the spring day when the Sun began to rise against the constellation/ House of Pisces, his descendants 2,160 later would observe the event with the Sun against the backdrop of the adjacent or incoming constellation, the House of Aquarius". (E. Velikovsky)

" With these numbers I don't doubt that you will say, 'well no man or even no nation could have observed, noted or understood the event of the phenomena:
Yet the evidence is irrefutable; the Sumerians who began their calendar (time counting) with the age of Taurus  4400BC were aware and recorded in their astronomical lists the previous Precessional shifts to Gemini 6500BC. cancer 8700BC, and Leo10,900BC.  So as one would expect it was duly recognised 2200BC- the first day of spring New Year to the peoples of Mesopotamia- retarded a full 30° and shifted and had shifted to the constellation or "AGE" or Aries the Ram".(Z. Sitchin).     .......
......and the house of the biblical Abram/Abraham of Ur-Uk in Mesopotamia.



Topic's author
#59
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,262
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
You did't answer my question. Do pilots have wings?

Or else, let's put it simpler. Does a man need wings to fly?
#60
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,352
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
You did't answer my question. Do pilots have wings?

Or else, let's put it simpler. Does a man need wings to fly?
I'll answer your questions. Will you then please answer mine? 

So pilots do not have physical wings.  Most however do have clothing wings.  

Men typically cannot fly without the help of a mechanical machine or a glider.  Of course, they can jump out of a plane and fly until they hit the ground. 

So in the Bible, Elijah went up into heaven in a fiery chariot. And Jesus ascended into the clouds of heaven.  Jesus didn't have wings, but he was atypical.