Ancient Aliens, the Nephilim and our Common Ancestry

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sansanoy
a reply to: Harte

Not speaking for him, but when I read it I assumed he was referring to the origin of the belief, not the literal belief. For example stars don't have the proper equipment to impregnate a woman. There are also a lot of other stories that directly give a star the ability to be human, just as planets were known as a gate to a particular gods realm or perhaps as the god themselves.

There are a lot of these stories around the world that if we rewind their cultural development they start to form into the same overall story. Then when we let it play through time it devolves into more abstract stories like this one that are more likely to be passed down than the original story whose context is lost.

Yet the story has nothing about anyone coming from the stars. So, one cannot claim aliens came down and impregnated a woman, which is what was stated, or at least implied.
What we have is the myth. We don't have anything else and to claim it means something else is indicative of nothing at all.

Harte

But both Aborigines and American Indians have stories about Star People. The Aborigines have been shown to be pretty good with their stories matching actual happenings on their continent.

Both Aborigines and American Indians have night skies full of mysterious white spots.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sansanoy
a reply to: Harte

Not speaking for him, but when I read it I assumed he was referring to the origin of the belief, not the literal belief. For example stars don't have the proper equipment to impregnate a woman. There are also a lot of other stories that directly give a star the ability to be human, just as planets were known as a gate to a particular gods realm or perhaps as the god themselves.

There are a lot of these stories around the world that if we rewind their cultural development they start to form into the same overall story. Then when we let it play through time it devolves into more abstract stories like this one that are more likely to be passed down than the original story whose context is lost.

Yet the story has nothing about anyone coming from the stars. So, one cannot claim aliens came down and impregnated a woman, which is what was stated, or at least implied.
What we have is the myth. We don't have anything else and to claim it means something else is indicative of nothing at all.

Harte

But both Aborigines and American Indians have stories about Star People. The Aborigines have been shown to be pretty good with their stories matching actual happenings on their continent.

Both Aborigines and American Indians have night skies full of mysterious white spots.

Harte

Do they also have women going up to the stars? I have seen a lot of skies, seen a lot of "stars" come down to. Never seen people go up. Seems kind of weird to mythologize against what is plainly observed. If your hypothesis that the mythology is based on the observations of the night sky is correct it seems at odds that they would choose a narrative that is in complete reversal of such a common observation of the night sky as falling stars.

While this story is in great odds with your hypothesis that it is from the actual observations of a night sky, it's not at all at odds with the nephilim narrative. There are stories on the other side of the world that talk about a mother of a nephilim that ascends to the stars. The story of Ishtar is one such story...

"Of all the angels’ brides, the most beautiful was Ishtar, the wife of Shemchazay. Shemchazay watched her constantly, never letting her beauty slip from his gaze. He built her a house to match her incomparable visage. Daily, he brought her gifts to decorate the house, hoping to please her. But forever his wife remained forlorn and aloof from him. Never once did they engage in sexual relations.

Probing his wife at the nature of her sadness, he said, “Tell me what brings you such sadness and I will do whatever you ask, so that I may bring you happiness!”

Taken aback, Shemchazay tried to dissuade her of her wish, because the Holy Name was full of great and terrible power. But his wife was obstinate. So he told her the ineffable name of God, which would allow her to ascend to heaven. As soon as she heard it she ran outside and spoke the Holy Name. Her body glowed brighter than the sun, she shuddered violently, and upon hearing her plea, God brought this woman up to his abode and made her a shining star in heaven.

“Whatever I ask?” Ishtar said.

“Yes!” Shemchazay promised. “Anything in my power.”

So Ishtar told him her wish. “You have chosen to leave heaven and dwell among humanity. Just the same, I wish to leave humanity and dwell in heaven beside God. Teach me the Holy Name, so I may ascend to heaven.”"

Taken aback, Shemchazay tried to dissuade her of her wish, because the Holy Name was full of great and terrible power. But his wife was obstinate. So he told her the ineffable name of God, which would allow her to ascend to heaven. As soon as she heard it she ran outside and spoke the Holy Name. Her body glowed brighter than the sun, she shuddered violently, and upon hearing her plea, God brought this woman up to his abode and made her a shining star in heaven.

a reply to: Inc_9x
As I remember it, the story goes something like this…
While captive in Babylon, the Israelites copied down the history of the world that was taught to them. This history included the tablets of the Sumerians and became the first book of the Torah, Genesis. And in that history was the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis story. In these all the animals of the field went onto the boat and the flood lasted for 6 days and flattened the land.

The Israelites rewrote this with Noah (Respite) as their main character. They changed the original rain part from 6 days to 40 and had all the animals of the world going on two by two. They did this most likely to explain how animals survived if the world was covered by water.

Now we need a little common sense here…
If the world was covered by water then where did all the water go? The world is not a bathtub. There is no drain plug.

But the answer is easy…
The flood story was written by man, not by a god. This man, Atrahasis/Utnapishtim/Ziusudra, was not a sailor but a city dweller. So after his boat gets washed 20 miles out to sea he is not going to be able to see land anymore and he will literally think that the entire world is covered by water.

originally posted by: Sansanoy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sansanoy
a reply to: Harte

Not speaking for him, but when I read it I assumed he was referring to the origin of the belief, not the literal belief. For example stars don't have the proper equipment to impregnate a woman. There are also a lot of other stories that directly give a star the ability to be human, just as planets were known as a gate to a particular gods realm or perhaps as the god themselves.

There are a lot of these stories around the world that if we rewind their cultural development they start to form into the same overall story. Then when we let it play through time it devolves into more abstract stories like this one that are more likely to be passed down than the original story whose context is lost.

Yet the story has nothing about anyone coming from the stars. So, one cannot claim aliens came down and impregnated a woman, which is what was stated, or at least implied.
What we have is the myth. We don't have anything else and to claim it means something else is indicative of nothing at all.

Harte

But both Aborigines and American Indians have stories about Star People. The Aborigines have been shown to be pretty good with their stories matching actual happenings on their continent.

Both Aborigines and American Indians have night skies full of mysterious white spots.

Harte

Do they also have women going up to the stars? I have seen a lot of skies, seen a lot of "stars" come down to. Never seen people go up. Seems kind of weird to mythologize against what is plainly observed. If your hypothesis that the mythology is based on the observations of the night sky is correct it seems at odds that they would choose a narrative that is in complete reversal of such a common observation of the night sky as falling stars.

So you think women went up to the star world, became pregnant, and one tried to escape back to Earth by braiding turnip greens, but her improvised rope was too short so she fell, died, gave birth and her son was raised by animals that speak Lakota?
That is, are you sure you're not just interpreting the story the way you want, while ignoring equally unlikely parts of it?
Otherwise, how do you explain talking meadowlarks and ropes reaching (almost) to the stars?


You can't just say "Well, they made that part up, but this other part must be based in fact!"

It appears to me that you are being very selective - one might even say biased - in your analysis of this myth. Have you read any of the other myths about this son of hers, "Fallen Star?"
Do you think the Lakota never saw a falling star?
Which is a better basis for the myth, aliens or falling stars?

originally posted by: SansanoyWhile this story is in great odds with your hypothesis that it is from the actual observations of a night sky, it's not at all at odds with the nephilim narrative. There are stories on the other side of the world that talk about a mother of a nephilim that ascends to the stars. The story of Ishtar is one such story...

The Fallen Star story (and the Ishtar story) is almost completely at odds with the Nephilim myth. Tell me what you think they have in common.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

what do you think of this ?

www.theancientaliens.com...

if we discount aliens
ghosts



holy men covered in ash and paint ?

a reply to: kibric

Crikey Kibric!!

That's more scarier then the underworlds.

Yikes . . .

If the world was covered by water then where did all the water go? The world is not a bathtub. There is no drain plug.

Prior to the flood there likely was less ocean and more land mass. Thus the water during the flood went to the oceans we now know. Before the flood the bible indicates there was another layer of our atmosphere composed of water. " God made the expanse (sky) and separated the water UNDER the expanse from the water ABOVE it." (Genesis 1:7) When god caused this layer to collapse, it flooded the earth and created the oceans we have now. Since then we are exposed to more volatile weather and radiation from the sun.

I find it compelling that at least at two locations 90 miles apart in Texas, there is evidence of a massive flood. The first location is in Waco, TX and is now one of the new National Monuments. There have been a couple dozen mammoths discovered, but it is estimated that there could be hundreds. Waco Mammoths National Monument The other site is Innerspace Caverns near Georgetown, Tx. There, 3 natural entrances to the cave were plugged up during a massive flood which trapped various animals. Inner Space Technical Paper

There seems to be a global pattern of Mammoths/Mastodons disappearing suddenly. This is evidenced by the numerous frozen remains discovered in northern regions.

The earth will be restored to it's warmer and more temperate past. "There shall be a handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains." (Psalms 72:16) In the past, even Antarctica flourished with forests. Antarctic Forests

In support of TheChrome above

Central Australia had an inland sea. The seashells are still there to see.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Harte

what do you think of this ?

www.theancientaliens.com...

if we discount aliens
ghosts

holy men covered in ash and paint ?

I agree with the two comments at the end of the article.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sansanoy

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Sansanoy
a reply to: Harte

Not speaking for him, but when I read it I assumed he was referring to the origin of the belief, not the literal belief. For example stars don't have the proper equipment to impregnate a woman. There are also a lot of other stories that directly give a star the ability to be human, just as planets were known as a gate to a particular gods realm or perhaps as the god themselves.

There are a lot of these stories around the world that if we rewind their cultural development they start to form into the same overall story. Then when we let it play through time it devolves into more abstract stories like this one that are more likely to be passed down than the original story whose context is lost.

Yet the story has nothing about anyone coming from the stars. So, one cannot claim aliens came down and impregnated a woman, which is what was stated, or at least implied.
What we have is the myth. We don't have anything else and to claim it means something else is indicative of nothing at all.

Harte

But both Aborigines and American Indians have stories about Star People. The Aborigines have been shown to be pretty good with their stories matching actual happenings on their continent.

Both Aborigines and American Indians have night skies full of mysterious white spots.

Harte

Do they also have women going up to the stars? I have seen a lot of skies, seen a lot of "stars" come down to. Never seen people go up. Seems kind of weird to mythologize against what is plainly observed. If your hypothesis that the mythology is based on the observations of the night sky is correct it seems at odds that they would choose a narrative that is in complete reversal of such a common observation of the night sky as falling stars.

So you think women went up to the star world, became pregnant, and one tried to escape back to Earth by braiding turnip greens, but her improvised rope was too short so she fell, died, gave birth and her son was raised by animals that speak Lakota?
That is, are you sure you're not just interpreting the story the way you want, while ignoring equally unlikely parts of it?
Otherwise, how do you explain talking meadowlarks and ropes reaching (almost) to the stars?


You can't just say "Well, they made that part up, but this other part must be based in fact!"

It appears to me that you are being very selective - one might even say biased - in your analysis of this myth. Have you read any of the other myths about this son of hers, "Fallen Star?"
Do you think the Lakota never saw a falling star?
Which is a better basis for the myth, aliens or falling stars?

originally posted by: SansanoyWhile this story is in great odds with your hypothesis that it is from the actual observations of a night sky, it's not at all at odds with the nephilim narrative. There are stories on the other side of the world that talk about a mother of a nephilim that ascends to the stars. The story of Ishtar is one such story...

The Fallen Star story (and the Ishtar story) is almost completely at odds with the Nephilim myth. Tell me what you think they have in common.

Harte

Of course I don't believe they climbed down with turnip greens why would you even suggest that I do? As I have said many times we are looking at a recultured story based on a primoridal story from the other side of the world. Recultured story's have a far higher chance at being retransmitted than a story whose context is lost. If there was such an event that led up to a major catastrophe it is highly probable that we would find an account of it around the world. It is also probable that given time and loss of context it would be recultured so that it could be retransmitted. It's not as if this is an isolated case we find major themes of the primordial world all throughout the world.

Of course it's possible, as I said this could be an isolated incident. But I find it more plausible that it is a part of this primordial story than the hypothesis that the night sky exists and is observed therefore this is based on observation despite the fact that observation is directly contrary to the story. I certainly don't see any need to resist the concept of such a theme even if you reject the event. Even if the primordial story is mythic in origin it's not improbable or implausible that it could be transmitted from one side of the world to the other while maintaining some core themes.

The Ishtar story does not fall into the realm of scripture like Enoch does or stories like Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis. The Ishtar story comes from a larger body of Jewish legend and myth without authoritative authorship. It should not be anticipated to have exact themes, it is a merging of Jewish belief and the worship of gods outside Israel. It does however clearly use the prior belief of angels and nephilm as it's base to merge Ishtar into the Jewish world.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Inc_9x
As I remember it, the story goes something like this…
While captive in Babylon, the Israelites copied down the history of the world that was taught to them. This history included the tablets of the Sumerians and became the first book of the Torah, Genesis. And in that history was the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis story. In these all the animals of the field went onto the boat and the flood lasted for 6 days and flattened the land.

The Israelites rewrote this with Noah (Respite) as their main character. They changed the original rain part from 6 days to 40 and had all the animals of the world going on two by two. They did this most likely to explain how animals survived if the world was covered by water.

The Isrealites had priests and a larger body of written belief and prophecies before Babylon. When Cyrus took over Babylon the scrolls of Isaiah were presented to him as prophecy of his arrival. Even if we reject that account, Cyrus who just captured Babylon released the Jews freely and magnanimously. If they had the same beliefs as Babylon that would be an odd gesture.

The critical elements in the Bible and Mesopotamian literature, and world literature for that matter are shared, but the construction of those critical elements are vastly different and in many cases in complete reversal. Of those stories the stories in Genesis are substantially more complex and substantially lacking in crude and observable mechanics as an explanation for the events. For example the story of Cain and Abel is paralleled in the debate between summer and winter where Enlil goes around humping the hills of the earth to produce summer and winter. Mesopotamia was full of such myths where things are brought about by the same process from which they are brought about on earth, mainly semen. This is the exact opposite way in which Biblical literature describes the world. In Biblical literature things come from a supernatural realm with it's own unique properties of authority and power completely separate from the way the natural world works.

If we have a true event it should be expected that we find it told differently from different people. The existence of different versions using the same critical elements doesn't mean it was copied. When we mix two cultures what we find is a merging of their beliefs, not a copying of it. It would make more sense to say they merged beliefs and to some extent they were influenced but there is no real justification to say they just copied and rewrote their entire belief structure from Babylonian beliefs. If we look at the reasons they are in Bablyon in the first place we find it is because of the mixing of culture and the worship of other Gods. It would be bizarre for them to ingest an entire religious belief given that that is the same explanation given for their circumstance. In fact we find the exact opposite of this sort of move. In the first temple era the Isrealites believed in two powers in heaven worthy of worship. It was only after the Babylonian captivity that they began to ignore the other power in heaven and only worship a single Yahweh. So they actually went in the opposite direction of Babylonian belief. They drew their own beliefs in more stricter to Biblical literature like Deuteronomy 6:4.

originally posted by: Sansanoy

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Inc_9x
As I remember it, the story goes something like this…
While captive in Babylon, the Israelites copied down the history of the world that was taught to them. This history included the tablets of the Sumerians and became the first book of the Torah, Genesis. And in that history was the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis story. In these all the animals of the field went onto the boat and the flood lasted for 6 days and flattened the land.

The Israelites rewrote this with Noah (Respite) as their main character. They changed the original rain part from 6 days to 40 and had all the animals of the world going on two by two. They did this most likely to explain how animals survived if the world was covered by water.

In the first temple era the Isrealites believed in two powers in heaven worthy of worship. It was only after the Babylonian captivity that they began to ignore the other power in heaven and only worship a single Yahweh.

Is that the case? "Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth." (Genesis 14:18,19) Melchizedek evidently was king of what would become Jerusalem and Israel in the future. He worshiped the same God Abram/Abraham did, however was not linked to the nation of Israel. Hebrews 7:1-20 describes how Jesus was likened to Melchizedek.

a reply to: Harte

I think you might need one
to remove that stick up your bum

If you think rock art relates to anything at all unhuman, then the stick is in your eye, not my butt; and possibly has penetrated even deeper into the skull.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

If you think rock art relates to anything at all unhuman,

you seem to have completely missed the point in my post

if we discount aliens
ghosts
holy men covered in ash and paint ?

never mind

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Harte

If you think rock art relates to anything at all unhuman,

you seem to have completely missed the point in my post

if we discount aliens
ghosts
holy men covered in ash and paint ?

never mind

I missed no point at all, unless your point was that "holy men" are not humans. I missed that point - you didn't make it.
Whether these represent ash-covered shamans or whatnot is speculation. I maintain that they don't represent anything unhuman. Shamans are humans.

Harte

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Sansanoy

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Inc_9x
As I remember it, the story goes something like this…
While captive in Babylon, the Israelites copied down the history of the world that was taught to them. This history included the tablets of the Sumerians and became the first book of the Torah, Genesis. And in that history was the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis story. In these all the animals of the field went onto the boat and the flood lasted for 6 days and flattened the land.

The Israelites rewrote this with Noah (Respite) as their main character. They changed the original rain part from 6 days to 40 and had all the animals of the world going on two by two. They did this most likely to explain how animals survived if the world was covered by water.

In the first temple era the Isrealites believed in two powers in heaven worthy of worship. It was only after the Babylonian captivity that they began to ignore the other power in heaven and only worship a single Yahweh.

Is that the case? "Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth." (Genesis 14:18,19) Melchizedek evidently was king of what would become Jerusalem and Israel in the future. He worshiped the same God Abram/Abraham did, however was not linked to the nation of Israel. Hebrews 7:1-20 describes how Jesus was likened to Melchizedek.

I agree with what you are saying but don't see the objection. During the second temple era Mechizedek was one of the characters hypothesized to explain this second power in the Biblical texts.