Search Members

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Morningstar @ Nov. 05 2007,23:35)

I agree that the Lucifer teaching is false.   Satan is not really named Lucifer.  I also don't believe that the being discussed in the Isaiah verse is Satan.  I don't just believe that is was a man either.  I believe both a man and a fallen angel were being spoken to. The KJV of the bible helped create of false teaching by this translation. Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) 12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) 12 How you have fallen from heaven,       O morning star, son of the dawn!       You have been cast down to the earth,       you who once laid low the nations! Is in an overview explaining what I believe about the nations being governed by angelic kings. This was also the view of the early church. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 LXX Septuagint 8 When the Most High [The Father] divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord [Jesus the Son], Israel was the line of his inheritance. The Great Council In the beginning when God divided up the nations he appointed over each nation a divine son to be a watcher and a guardian.  Each son was to be a regent (one who rules in another’s place and with their authority) who would guide the people and represent the Father who is invisible and cannot be seen or heard by man. These beings were very much seen and heard by men as all ancient religions declare their direct dealings with their “gods”. Jesus received the nation of Israel as his inheritance. With Israel the Father had the plan of redemption so his unique only begotten son was given the important task of watching over it. For Jesus is the one who created man and will be the one who saves man. These sons are called “gods”. It is just a title that means “mighty one” and does not mean God in even remotely the same sense as that title applies to the Father. Our English language causes many problems when it comes to the titles and names of God and his sons in the Old Testament. We have turned the title of God into an official name of the Father and thus stripped that title of its original meaning. It is the difference between “mighty one” and “Almighty”; for God is the Most High obviously demonstrating that there are other Elohim that he is higher than. The other sons of God who watched over the other nations failed miserably and did not govern properly letting man fall into absolute debauchery and rather than ruling under the Father’s will they prided themselves to govern how they saw fit. The only son given a nation who loved righteousness and was faithful was Jesus, the Son who watched over Israel. God gave all authority to the one good Son, the one good Shepherd who inherited all nations. The other sons include Satan who is the “god” of this current world and the other fallen principalities and powers. I believe originally Satan was the guardian set over Eden and he set the example for the other fallen sons to follow. In the Old Testament we see many references to these powers. Some examples include the King of Tyre and the Prince of Tyre. Every nation had a human king and above him an angelic King. This is why sometimes these verses appear to be talking about a man and at other times an angel. Well, it is because two beings are being spoken about. In the case of Tyre God was sending a message through Ezekiel to both the bad human king and the bad angelic King. Another, example is when David said, “My Lord said to my Lord.”  Sometimes a lot of the prophecies and messianic verses in the Old Testament about Christ appear to be talking about David as well; it is because two beings are being spoken about. Jesus was the Elohim (god) over David and above both of them was the Most High (God). Remember, the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece mentioned in Daniel? Every nation had a divine son or “Lord” over it and above the divine son is the Father. God (Father) > Lord (divine son) > human King

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The answer to this could be in the book of Adam and Eve, where Satan (assuming satan and lucifer are the same person or family or race) tells that he was kicked out for not praising Adam and Eve.

In my reading of the bible, I see the Gods and Angels of being extra-terrestrial origin, and if these beings that called themselves gods and angels they would have been the leaders… AKA angelic kings.

Next could bring up the virgin births, if losing virginity happens when 2 humans have sex for the first time, if a woman were to have sex with one of the 'angels' (or their descendants) then it would not count as losing virginity because the 'angels' are NOT humans. Therefore, if Mary had consummated with an Angel she would still be a 'virgin' and would then bear a son of virgin birth.

Instead of addressing each of your points as tho I'm opposed, many ancient texts talk about wars of the gods in one form or another. (Ancient greeks – Re : Illiad, India – Mahabharata talks of wars of the gods, descriptions of biological and nuclear weaponry, Bible – Sodom and Gomorrah plus many other examples). So, if there's wars going on between gods, it's only natural that at some point these gods might want to go into hiding, since being in the same form as man could not tell the difference between friends and enemies, so they would create 'regents' for themselves to rule the world so that they could pull the strings from in hiding.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 22 2007,18:57)

Hi Kenrch Quote Everything is cursed not just man but the entire earth, all flesh is cursed. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned. Job 1:1 There was a man… whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. Which is right? Stuart

So, for both
A) For all have sinned AND
B) That Job was perfect and upright
to be 'truth' then it means either

A) All have sinned; means that Job was not within the group that has sinned
B) Job's Perfection and uprightness overshadows his sin
C) All have sinned is a generalization… akin to saying 'most have sinned'

If the choice is
A) where is mention of these other groups? (Oh wait, there's God's, Angels, Fallen Angels and Humans)
B) That even Jobs original sin had already been forgotten, or original sin did not apply to Job
C) How would you differentiate the ones that have inherited original sin and those that are exception?

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (942767 @ Nov. 21 2007,12:18)

Hi Journey: When Adam and Eve were created and in the Garden of Eden before their fall.  They were in innocence as is a new born baby. God's commandment to them was that they would die in the day that they ate of the tree.  Death not only means a physical death, but when they ate, they were spiritually separated from God, and so at the moment that they ate, they knew evil (disobedience to God's commandments) and good (obedience to God's commandments). They were naked and ashamed because of their guilt of having disobeyed God's commandment.  They then tried to hide from God because they knew that they were guilty and feared what God would to them because of their disobedience instead of admitting that they had sinned with a repentant heart which is what they should have done. Faith is believing what God has said in his Word and acting upon what he has said because you believe it. It starts with believing that God is a reality.

I still feel that talking of nakedness as meaning ignorance… Yes, this may be true that they suffered a spiritual death, but more likely it was the ones that they called 'God' that thought of the humans as being dead in his eyes for their betrayal.

I know the book of Adam and Eve is apocryphal, gives a sense that when Tyler Durden called humanity 'Gods unwanted children' you'd think he had read the bible himself.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,05:05)

I personally believe that the cure for cancer is really not sought the way it should be. There is big money in cancer treatment. If someone came up with a cure think of all of the money that would be lost by the various pharmaceutical companies and what not.

Exactly the point that my thoughts are leading to; how cures for cancers/Aids, among other diseases are more profitable to be treated than cured, how the best way to cure hunger seems to be to donate to unicef while the world powers have decided that they would rather spend that money on technological and military advancement, we live in a 'democracy' that allowed the most powerful man in the world to steal 2 (TWO!!) elections, whose greatest accomplishment has been to start an interminable war.

This is where my controversial view on the bible meets the real world of today, let's consider what I'm talking about.

We have the Nephilim that arrived, they created their sons to be slaves in the Gardens, eventually they left or were kicked out of the gardens, and then arrive the new generation of humans, who get corrupted by the Elohim and are expelled from the garden.

So, the Nephilim hate humanity for not being good slaves and living peacefully in the gardens. They feel betrayed, and the better part of the Old testament is a description of the ways God smites humanity over the generations

Then there are the Elohim, (in the book of Adam and Eve) the character that tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit comes and tells them in short that he hates them for being the cause of their eviction of the gardens as well. (They were shunned for not praising Adams name, and then kicked out of the garden roughly the same time that Adam and Eve were found to have eaten the fruit.

Followed by a flood, some wars and other catastrophes… the bible really makes for an intense read, Now, I'm not sure how things ended, and why we aren't still seeing these same types of struggles, and why the 'gods' and 'angels' stopped talking to men (Unless they are now indistinguishable from the rest of humanity)

The way that I see things is that perhaps these 2 forces that hate humans, and hate each other are still around in the world, better hidden, and are pulling the strings and working towards some goal against each other and while using humanity to build the things that are needed to accomplish these goals.

Sounds far fetched? Yes, it does… it would seem to explain alot of what's going on in the modern world, and why society seems so possessed about technological and military advancement rather than in solving societies ills.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (journey @ Nov. 15 2007,11:40)

Hi to all! Could somebody please help me understand these passages.   Gen 3: 6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together Why did Adam and Eve realized their nakedness ONLY after eating the fruit of the tree? Why do they have to cover their nakedness? 9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Why was Adam afraid of his nakedness to GOD?   Where did the feelings of “SHAME” and “AFRAID” came from?  from the fruit? Were these feelings NEW AND ONLY FELT AFTER THEIR EATING OF THE FRUIT? thank you. journey [/I]

Hi, I know my take on the bible is … controversial to say the least, but I believe that the bible is full of euphamisms, that the bible was written by primitive people in an attempt to understand and pass on the things that were going on in their lives…

Anyway, here is how I would interpret your quoted passages :

Gen 3:6-7 :
– I think that the 'tree of life' or 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' was really a euhpamism for simply a container of the knowledge of good and evil, perhaps science or some other knowledge that the 'Gods' didn't want the humans to have. I mean, you can consume knowledge in much the same way that you can consume an apple.
– So, by saying that Eve saw that the fruit was good for food, could be a euphamism for, as example, opening a forbidden book and seeing that it was safe to read (remember God said that it was forbidden to 'eat of the fruit', so, if it were a euphamism for a book of sorts, then it would only make sense to think that merely opening the book would be fatal).
– If Adam and Eve saw that they were naked, does that imply that the God's were clothed?
-I think the proper Euphamism for Naked = Ignorant, so 'The eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were ignorant, even tho I do concede that I'm not sure of a possible meaning of fig leaves in specific.

———–

why did they cover theire nakedness?
Because they had done something forbidden, and their ignorance was lifted and now they tried to hide the fact that they were ignorant (aka cover their shame)

The next question, is along the same line… this passage in particular sounds almost like 'God' walked in on Adam using some of the forbidden knowledge that he had sonsumed… and knowing that he was doing something forbidden, would naturally hide himself.

I would say that the Shame came from the knowledge that they had done something forbidden and would be unable to hide it, and afraid because they were lelft with the impression that the consequence of disobedience would be quite fatal…

I'm not going to go much further with this, but I feel that the feelings of shame and guilt were available to the people in the garden as well as the rest of the world.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2007,09:32)

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Describes the same 100m tall giants as: Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Who (a) survived the flood and (b) left no bones for archeologists? Stuart

I'm not going to stir up controversy for too much longer, all I really am trying to say is that thousands of years ago, when these ancient texts were written (I'm talking the bible, sanskrit writings, celtic legends, greek mythology, etc) I don't think that the people that started writing weren't on in on a global fiction story that they could pass on the generations, they weren't writing about how to be good people to reach enlightenment, they were trying to make sense of the things going on in their time, describing them as best as their limited intellects would allow, and somehow world wide, we see some of the same traits :

A) Stories of Giants
b) a reverence for snakes
c) A lost civilisation (Re : Eden / Atlantis)
d) A messiah that was born of a virgin, was a teacher, was crucified, and was resurected 3 days later
e) A war of the gods
etc.

Now, that said, let's look at the first Genesis quote :

Genesis 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

A) Who were the giants? Where did they go? Could these Giants be the same as the Nephilim (I've also heard them called Anunaki amon other names)?

B) 'When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men' : This statement says alot; god had many sons (Elohim seems to be an accepted name for the sons of God), that these were corporeal gods with corporeal sons, and they either found the daughters of men to be attractive, or they arrived with very few women of their own race.

C)The sons of the sons of god were to become men of renown; Now, this is going to be a controversial statement, but, if the story of the bible and other ancient texts is as I see it an attempt at understanding actual events, therefore a statement that the people blessed with the bloodline of the gods would be the men of renown, the leaders, the politicians, the ones that created and controlled the systems of politics and capitalsim of the modern world.

Now in Numbers :

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Anak = short form for Anunaki = Nephilim = Gods
Sons of Anak therefore = sons of God

Meaning we're still talking about the same group of people here.

The second part of this statement, 'and we were in… as grasshoppers… in their sight'. If you ask me, this sounds a lot more like a description of someone fliying over your head than it does of someone towering above you.

Back to the original question of did Enoch actually live to be 450+ years old??
I would say that it is plausible that, in time before the catastrophe, our natural lives could have been very much longer, or perhaps Enoch, who it seems was in the favor of the 'gods' / watchers / Nephilim had access to their advanced medical technology that I would propose they might have. Or it's also possible that before the catastrophe people had naturally longer lives.

Regardless of the answer someone gives, at best it will be a plausible answer…

[bmanmcfly]

No, Adam and Eve Would have been first homo-sapiens, yes. A crossbred of Nephilim and homo-erectus, I would wager that Adam and Eve would refer to groups of men and women, depending how many of these beings there were, how large the gardens were in eden, Adam and Eve could be anything from the litteral first man and women, or maybe just the names of the first of many. I mean, assuming that my points have at least some validity but really, if this type of thing actually happened, what the people would have seen going on and would have wanted passed along was beyond their reality, so oit would make sense that if they saw these incredible things that they could not understand they would have to use euphamism and metaaphor to enable others reading it to make sense of what they had seen.

[bmanmcfly]

The facts that I've accepted my whole life was that there was about +/- 2 billion years of life on earth before man walked on 2 legs, then about 200000 years to craft stone weapons, another 100 000 years before we began domesticating animals, and then we are told within 50 000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to an explosion of writing, culture, mathematics, philosophy, history, science, making the pyrimads among the other wonders of the world, created nuclear energy, computers, we are on the first discoveries in nano technology. So, where did all this extra information come from??

I believe that there is something to the theory of evolution, but the jump from homo-erectus to homo-sapien, over-night almost the fossil evidence shows that we went from cave men to fully developped human beings with all the abilities and intelligence of modern man.

What I do feel should be considered that if you take the myths of origin from all the societies around the world, and these stories include in one form or another and perhaps different names used…

a) A reverence for the serpant, there are numerous serpant messages in the bible, in greek mythology Zeus was the only god that appeared in pictures not accompanied by a serpant, many early cave drawings show men together with snakes.

b) A great flood,

C) A lost civilisation (Eden, atlantis)

D) A war of the gods, or war of dragons or serpants

E) A messiah who was born of a virgin, died on dec 22 and 3 days later resurected, was a teacher, among other traits, among other similarites that are found in these various texts…

This type of 'coincidence' would mean that at the very least suggest that all these cultures got their stories and myths from the same source… To go over this type of circumstanse as a logical series of events, the actual length of time is vague at the best of times, so it's reasonable that much of the bible as it was written could have come from stories that were passed down for generations before enough peace existed for a chapter to get written down.

Consider the thought as well, in the beginning of the bible there are lots of reference to god(s)… (which if you were an ancient hunter-gatherer suddenly exposed to an intelligence VASTLY superior to yours, you would call them gods not doubt) further along things change and the reference becomes more along the lines of angels, giants, or other more 'precise' descriptions of these beings, which would make sense because as you would see more of the beings you would see that they were not themselves gods, but would still see them as divine beings (angels)… that they talk about these beings flying around is also curious, is this flight because they litterally had wings, or were the wings some sort of machine to help them fly?

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Jodi @ Nov. 17 2007,07:48)

First show me a verse in the bible that uses the wording 'fallen angel' then we can talk about those verses.

I'm sorry, I exchanged the words… You actually made me grab the bible and find some the quotes that are relevant…

Start with 'They come from a far country, from the end of heavan-
The LORD and Hiss weapons of indignation
To destroy the whole land
Isaiah 13:5

(hope I quoted that right)

Sorry, lost the exact place, but I took note of this from somewhere in revelations
And the great dragon was 'cast down', the old serpant he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, he was cast down to Earth and his angels were cast down with him.

Since they were once among angels and the ones that called themselves gods, it's only a moderate stretch to call the god of revelations among the same group, or a rival group referred to in this passage.

Now, I'm sure you're gonna tear apart my argument, because well… I'm not quite at a level of expertise where I could make a legitimate point counter-point, because eventually I would have to take source from outside the bible to explain my case… and I'm not here to push any doctrine, at best I'm hear asking questions and explaining the frame that I took reading the bible.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 17 2007,03:50)

Brothers and Sisters in Christ what do you think of all of this. All I can say that we are in the end time and people like these will come out of the woodwork. What I can't get that they go onto a Christian Website. Boy, Oh, Boy what a mess. We better start praying cause time is short. Satan's wrath has began. Along with all of the worldly events there is no doubt in my mind about it. Like you said before hang on the going is going to be rough, to say the least. Peace and Love Mrs.

Oddly enough, in all of this I do believe you, that we are coming to an end time… there is going to be another great conflict coming up, I don't know what it is, but if you look the powers that be are acting in more direct ways… Look at George W Bush… elected twice by rigging the elections, has the lowest popularity of any president and is throwing out his agenda and calling it 'Us vs them”… But then, he's as much of a puppet in that game as any of the other leaders in power.

I mean really, if they stopped military spending for 1 year, we could solve all the worlds hunger problems for a generation… I also consider the implications that much of the bible, the first civilizations (egypt), and much of this history began in the middle east, and now the wars are starting in the middle east… To say that the US attacked Iraq for it's oil is only the start of the kind of agenda that I am starting to see going on.

I've heard of other authors coming out now and declaring the state of the world as the beginning of an endgame… so yes, it is starting to become apparent, but by the time it becomes obvious to everyone, it will be too late things will be set into motion. I couldn't claim to know what they are, but there is definately some sort of plan going on.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 16 2007,20:38)

Quote (bmanmcfly @ Nov. 16 2007,17:01) If the view I'm taking from all of this is even partially correct, which I cannot claim to know, since it's clear that many of you have studied the bible for years, BUT, from the direction I'm thinking of things, and this could comply with the archaeological history… where homo-erectus became homo-sapien. The way I would take it would be : from dust = from the earth = from the homo-erectus that was on the earth when the 'gods' arrived… that still could fall into the 'genetic modification' theory.   The way I approached reading the bible was continuously asking the question about the passages : If this is based on some tangible reality, how would this have played out?  I guess it's just trying to turn the imagery into something real… even if the story itself sounds unreal for the time period.   I mean one logical jump I could take (I would call an obscenely worst case scenario), that the bible was simply a way to track the bloodlines of the actual gods who are waiting for us to achieve their final goal, which, being 'fallen angels' is quite likely to get off the planet… and could be their original list of… well, who gets to leave with them.  Trust me, I know how much of a whack job that must make me sound like, but the more I search, the more the story seems to be falling into place.  Yes, this search was kickstarted from an other source, and well… I've got a hard time finding any holes in the theory presented, these ancient documents from around the world all seem to tell the same stories… it's mostly just the names that are changed. Hi bmanmcfly I should just front up firstly with the fact that I do not believe in any kind of god.   I will resist calling you a whackjob (I wouldn't anyway) but you do have a very unconventional take on these things, for this forum at least.  Apart from me you are the only person I can remember using the words Homo Erectus, for example.  To a few here that alone might be enough to award you “antichrist” status. What you seem to be trying here is a very literal kind of allegorcism, where biblical myths can be translated into analogous (but not identical) historical events. I don't think it works for myths common to different traditions.  You can say the same thing for all the virgin births and resurrections myths that many religions have. Is there a name for this method of interpretation? Stuart

I'm not sure if there is a term, to describe this thinking… If on the one side you have evolution, and on the other side you have creationism, I suppose the closest to what this might be called could be catastrophism… in the sense that the theory presented accepted that there was a great flood (except asked the question of where the water came from), possible nuclear war (think sodom and gomorrah), among other events, finally there was a big battle between 2 forces think Nephilim race vs Elohim race which ended when a pole shift threw the whole world out of whack… followed by the growth of 'modern' civilisations and modern history.

Just remember this is not the results of MY research, I was just presented the idea, and am making an effort to look at many of the sources he mentioned so I can get a better understanding of it all. I am on my own intellectual journey with this, I didn't intend to get in any extended religious arguments, but this theory is a complete culmination of both evolution theory (which human beings seem to have been an exception), and the religious story of creation.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 28 2007,18:34)

I don't think you read my post.  For the giants to be present in Numbers they must have survived the flood.  Were they so tall that they were able to keep their heads above the surface for the duration of the flood?  Did they survive on fish? I'll grant you that having no evidence is no disproof, but you're the one making the claim without evidence here! Stuart

The only real evidence to go off of is the stories that the ancients are telling…

Ok 100m tall giants, sounds like an exageration… maybe 10-15 ft tall…

If you're going to take the story at it's word, these giants were breeding with 'human' (at least higher % human) then some of this height would be bred out, but on occasion even these days there are giants of men and women that are born… 8-10ft tall. One thing that's not clear is the exact timelines, I mean this crossbreeding between the 'gods' the 'sons of the gods' and the 'humans' could have gone on for thousands of years by then they could have been indistinguishable from any other human other than an unusual height.

I'm sure it will be brushed off as a hoax, but http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041001_en.html
seems relevant evidence… I'd only add weight to this picture because of the claims that the site is closed to the general public.

[bmanmcfly]

I couldn't find an edit button, sorry for double post…

The explanation I gave also explains 666 as being the number of the beast / evil number this way noone would look deeply in it's significanse… I don't know if this is the case, but to me it's not far of a stretch.

[bmanmcfly]

I believe that there was some sort of universal creator, but I also believe that a being of the scope to create the universe is beyond the scope of human intelligence therefore doing things to please this sort of god is irrellevant.

Now, what I am trying to say here is that I believe that the bible as it's written like most other ancient texts from around the world, due to their similarity overall, is actually a tale of true to life events in earths history. If you consider most of what's in the bible is a euphamism for something real and tangible that has happened, then you have a tale of 'gods' (I'm thinking 'Created in OUR image') coming to earth, and continues to be a tale of a great flood, wars, deceit, god's wrath, among other things.

That said, I was also saying that IF this is true AND IF forms of divination were known to the gods AND IF the bible has more numerolological significance than would be expected by random chance, THEN it's a fair assumption that at some point a deciding factor decided that rather than remove the doors to understanding the true messages within the bible, this deciding force instead announced that the key to unlock this door goes against the beliefs of the book. Make sense? Keep in mind, I'm not stating this as truth, just that if it were truth there is a logical explanation.

[bmanmcfly]

If the view I'm taking from all of this is even partially correct, which I cannot claim to know, since it's clear that many of you have studied the bible for years, BUT, from the direction I'm thinking of things, and this could comply with the archaeological history… where homo-erectus became homo-sapien.

The way I would take it would be : from dust = from the earth = from the homo-erectus that was on the earth when the 'gods' arrived… that still could fall into the 'genetic modification' theory.

The way I approached reading the bible was continuously asking the question about the passages : If this is based on some tangible reality, how would this have played out? I guess it's just trying to turn the imagery into something real… even if the story itself sounds unreal for the time period.

I mean one logical jump I could take (I would call an obscenely worst case scenario), that the bible was simply a way to track the bloodlines of the actual gods who are waiting for us to achieve their final goal, which, being 'fallen angels' is quite likely to get off the planet… and could be their original list of… well, who gets to leave with them. Trust me, I know how much of a whack job that must make me sound like, but the more I search, the more the story seems to be falling into place. Yes, this search was kickstarted from an other source, and well… I've got a hard time finding any holes in the theory presented, these ancient documents from around the world all seem to tell the same stories… it's mostly just the names that are changed.

[bmanmcfly]

Quote (942767 @ Nov. 14 2007,16:00)

Quote Hi Chap: All of God's commandments are good.  They are intended for our good.  Disobedience to His commandments is evil, and God knows this.  God is Holy and cannot commit evil as in committing sin which if he did he would be transgressing His own commandments. He does create evil in the sense that he may create calmity or allow it always with the intent of saving His children from the consequence of sin. God Bless

You sound like the right person that might be able to explain why 'Thou shalt not make a graven image' should be more important of a commandment, even more important than 'Thou shalt not kill'??

What could be so important to forbid the image of 'god', so much more than the act of killing another human?

The other thing you might help with is that it seems that there is one 'God' when I go to church, but to read the bible man was created in 'OUR' image and not 'HIS' image?? There are at least a few places in the bible where either there is more than one god or He likes to talk of himself as being a plural? Any insight?

[bmanmcfly]

Quote

Genesis 3: 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” *Was this merely a lie from the devil in him saying that God knows both good and evil? It states here that God knows good and evil? I know that God's nature is of love, but also of judgement. Does verse 5 mean that God is both good and evil (which I doubt) or is it just saying that he had knowledge of both of these ideals: good and evil, from the beginning? Verse 5 indicates that God knows both good and evil, but in what way? Help on understanding this would be much appreciated.

I'll probly get flamed for this… but if you think of the serpant as being 'Elohim' (a person from outside the confines of Eden), and that he talked to both Adam (as a group of men) and Eve (a group of woman) to consume the forbidden knowledge (however taking that knowledge means, possibly clearing the veil of 'nakedness' (re: ignorance) that first the woman went for and followed by the man… then they were cast out of Eden the city that the Nephilim have built.

The way I look at things, that is a very believable story all of a sudden.

[bmanmcfly]

Since I'm a new poster here, I'll give a bit of personal background on this… For most of my life I knew that religion was more of a means of social control than of attaining enlightenment, whatever that might be. I always assumed that the bible was a book of good things that's been interpreted mostly in the wrong ways by powerful people. (I'm talking things like crusades, etc).

Then I came across the work of Michael Tsarion, his book Atlantis, Alien visitations, and Genetic Manipulation. Where he presented a very different historical account from what we are taught in schools, this history was based on all ancient texts, and explained that when you took these stories as accounts of real events that things looked very different. I decided at that point that it was time to read the bible for myself to get a grasp of all this and to see if what he said would hold true.

He quoted from the book of Enoch repeatedly, and this site held the first copy I could find and am in the process of reading it…

As for now, take the use of the words : “Fallen angels” where did they fall from? Heavan? The heavans, as in from the sky? If it litterally means that people fell from the sky, they clearly would have had a far greater intellegence over the native people that would have passed down the tale. If they were cast down, they probly lacked what they would have needed to survive on the longterm : Offspring. Next best thing, breed with the native man. I could be mistaken, but Elohim could mean these first offspring. The Nephilim wanted them to do all the work, but since the Elohim had the knowledge of the gods they didn't want a mere life of servitude, rebelled and left the land… Sticking to the bible I think it kinda skips out this section, but if accurate would help explain something further…

but first, if you think of Adam and Eve as being 2 groups of people, perhaps split as male and female, or whatever the exact case was, that they were created (using a rib to make a woman sounds alot like cloning if you ask me) to work in the garden of eden, but were kept ignorant of the 'divine knowledge' (More in the sense of what the Gods knew that the Adams and Eves were lacking). If you think of the 'serpant' tempting eve to take a bite of the apple, change the imagery for a second, a 'son of the serpant' could easily turn into snake form over time. Now, if the tree of life was just an image to describe the divine knowledge, perhaps it wasn't the eat the forbidden apple, she 'consumed the forbidden knowledge'.

It seems like most of the rest of the bible is a tale of 'God' (Who at this point has had 2 groups of slaves that they created rebel on them, in that position I'd be pissed off too), and it's evident because by the end of genesis how many times have the gods done something to beat the crap out of the people?

[bmanmcfly]

Hi, now I'm by no means an expert on the subject, so bear with me that I don't have the quotes to back this all up (call me lazy)

So, Let's say we have 'Gods' that showed up on earth, they've been betrayed by the people they've created, now, there is this bible that is written. If the use of numerology in the bible used would reqiure an in depth knowledge of the subject to find any meaning in it, and this knowledge was availaible to either or both the 'gods' and / or the humans… what better way to make sure the systems of control stay in place than to call this 'secret layer' of the bible as being pagan / evil in origin??

Also, what if the number of the beast 666 isn't really a source of 'divine knowledge' (for lack of a better term)??

I mean you gotta consider the fact that if the bible is at least somewhat based on true events, well… you don't just think that they dissappeared now do you? Left the planet maybe? Buried in hidden caves somewhere? Perhaps under the ocean (I don't remember which part of the bible but I do remember reading of creatures under the water)?

[Author]

Posts