It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When was the earliest abduction?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
as far as visions if you do some research youll find visions then meant something totaly different then what it does today.

HE LOOKED WITH HIS EYES NOT HIS MIND ! !!!!!!!!
this implies 5 not 4. also he was walking beside a river at the time.



Please further enlighten me then on the ancient definitons of the word 'Vision'.


I did show you one now you,
Do research on it!

[edit on 26-2-2005 by lizzardsamok]




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
According to the first three verses of the Book of Ezekiel, it states, in black and white, that they could not be actually physically present with him, since others would have had to see the representations as well.

Here's a quote:



1: Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
2: In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,
3: The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.


Now, if I'm not mistaken, what he describes in the following verses would be MORE than sufficient to get the attention of the other nearby captives, if we're to take you're interpretation of the vision, am I not correct? If so, then how come no one else sees what he sees? Also, if he's really taken away, how come you don't hear about him being brought back from God's Temple at the end of the book?

These are just a few of the questions that I have that are as yet unanswered. I also want to mention that I find it quite interesting that you're taking such a sarcastic and demeaning tone to this debate lizzardsamok.

Also, in response to your statement about the vision definition. There have been many cases of people thinking they have seen the Virgin Mary, and yet not all of the people at the site could see it at the same time, if at all. In the case of Ezekiel though, I wouldn't think that his vision would be too hard to miss even for the casual observer, now do you?

[edit on 27-2-2005 by TheBorg]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I also remember that in Biblical times, when someone saw a vision, they usually had to go to another person to have them interpret to them what they saw. If it was a physical representation of something, I don't imagine that it would be necessary to have it interpreted because others would have seen it as well.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by TheBorg]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
1: Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.


here he is giving landmarks not saying he is physically standing with captives to see what he is seeing.



3: The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel


this means a message was delivered to him quickly.

If you are hung up on this vision thing then take ENOCH for example and apply every thing i said with him too......



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
My only problem is that I'm trying to get your concept of what a 'vision' really is.

Question to ALL ATS members: Am I the only one that doesn't get this concept? Or am I right in my assumption that a vision is a form of divination in which the person recieving the message is in a trance-like state?

The sense that I'm getting here is that you are under the assumption that these things ACTUALLY happened. I'm trying to figure out that if that's possible, why everyone else didn't notice the whirlwind coming out of the north, or any of the other things mentioned. Because I don't believe that it should be called a vision if everyone sees it. If my assumption is true, and you have to be in a trance-like state to have a vision, and you're the only one to see it, then it never PHYSICALLY happened; that's all I'm trying to establish here is that what he saw did not happen.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizzardsamok
thats not related in any remote way to abduction!

Encounters and abductions are in the same general class of phenomenon.



so what relevance is the virgin mary in the conversasion of things before the said "mary" even existed?

The similiarity between mary encounters and modern alien encouters and the like shows that there is a sensible basis for thinking that much of what goes on is a socio-psychological phenomenon rather than actual visitations by jesus' mommy or big eyed grays.

I think that, even if one beleives in aliens, ufos, etc etc, that one cannot say that every report of abduction/encounter is an actual abduction/encounter, and that the ideas that come from the above are the right track for dealing with the 'false' abductions that must be there in large numbers.


read this its BOOK OF ENOCH , the first chapter is named WATCHERS , it meant Angels or other beings that watch men on earth ! this is older than NOAH

Its a story from a religious book, I'll agree that perhaps its based on an actual real world report, but whats this about it being 'older than noah'?



theborg
Or am I right in my assumption that a vision is a form of divination in which the person recieving the message is in a trance-like state?

To say the least, a 'vision' is usually not something you actually see or at least that is real. A 'prophetic/relavatory' vision of say, a dragon eating a globe, does not mean that there was an actual dragon floating in front of you eating an actual globe, and furthermore might even be something thats 'supposed' to be taken allegorically. The 'visions of god' from the enoch story seem to mean 'relevatory visions', but undoubtedly it could also mean 'i physically saw god in person'. I tend to think against that tho since thats not usually how it seems to go in these stories. Besides, this is a text translated from another language and passed down over millenia, so I don't think much can be put on one word either way.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

To say the least, a 'vision' is usually not something you actually see or at least that is real. A 'prophetic/relavatory' vision of say, a dragon eating a globe, does not mean that there was an actual dragon floating in front of you eating an actual globe, and furthermore might even be something thats 'supposed' to be taken allegorically. The 'visions of god' from the enoch story seem to mean 'relevatory visions', but undoubtedly it could also mean 'i physically saw god in person'. I tend to think against that tho since thats not usually how it seems to go in these stories. Besides, this is a text translated from another language and passed down over millenia, so I don't think much can be put on one word either way.


Which brings me to my conclusion that what Ezekiel saw was NOT physical in any way, shape, or form. Had the other captives have seen it as well, I wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I just need it to be established that what he saw wasn't real, since it can be further assumed from there that it was metaphorical, and shouldn't be taken the way that it has been.

Believe me when I say that I want to believe more than just about anyone here that God mentioned aliens in the Bible, because that would be the most kickass story of all time; that we're not alone in this cold vast desert of a universe. However, there is NO evidence to even suggest that any such of a statement has been made.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its a story from a religious book, I'll agree that perhaps its based on an actual real world report, but whats this about it being 'older than noah'?

ENOCH was NOAHS great grandfather !

when flood came alot of records and books were lost ,our old earth history.
Noah wrote most of what HE REMEMBERED from his great grandfathers book, THE BOOK OF ENOCH !
later one portion of it was translated and included in king james bible they called it GENESIS.

they only recently found it burried near dead sea scroll area.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizzardsamok

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its a story from a religious book, I'll agree that perhaps its based on an actual real world report, but whats this about it being 'older than noah'?

ENOCH was NOAHS great grandfather !

when flood came alot of records and books were lost ,our old earth history.
Noah wrote most of what HE REMEMBERED from his great grandfathers book, THE BOOK OF ENOCH !
later one portion of it was translated and included in king james bible they called it GENESIS.

they only recently found it burried near dead sea scroll area.




What exactly does this have to do with Ezekiel? I fail to see the relevance.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizzardsamok

Originally posted by Terapin
ezekial is a great Ailen abduction story in the bible. it even has a great wheel of light ( UFO) Worth a look for your research


ezekiel never got taken in the craft just saw it,

Enoch was first abduction in recorded history,

GEN 6:24"enoch walked with god and was not for god took him in a firery chariot"
he wrote a book of which genisis was based called book of enoch its available online.

next was elijah
2 Kings 2:11 "behold there appeared achariot of fire and elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven"


[edit on 22-2-2005 by lizzardsamok]


as you can see BORG before we got off topic with the "vision" oppinions i was stateing ENOCH was first recorded abduction and ELIJAH was second.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Ahhh, ok. That explains the relevance. If I were to pick a specific case in the Bible which I thought suggested UFOs, it would be the event with Elijah. I find that to be MUCH more significant than what Ezekiel saw, simply because Elijah just wasn't seen anymore after that.

Plus, it was an ACTUAL event, unlike Ezekiel's vision!!

[edit on 3-3-2005 by TheBorg]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
yes sir thanks for agreeing with me,
but now read book of enoch and youll see he was first one, youll like it.

so i answered the posted question: ENOCH

now if the body taken is dead the person earlier was correct on ADAM,
but he was dead. so no abduction , but a body snatching , yes!
GODS ANGELS TOOK ADAMS BODY when he died. then they took ABLE's BODY.
book of enoch and other texts state.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by lizzardsamok]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by lizzardsamok
yes sir thanks for agreeing with me,
but now read book of enoch and youll see he was first one, youll like it.

so i answered the posted question: ENOCH

now if the body taken is dead the person earlier was correct on ADAM,
but he was dead. so no abduction , but a body snatching , yes!
GODS ANGELS TOOK ADAMS BODY when he died. then they took ABLE's BODY.
book of enoch and other texts state.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by lizzardsamok]


Also, how do you explain the bizarre fact that when Cain left Adam and Eve to go to the Land of Nod, he found people there? I can't quite understand just HOW those people got there, unless they were here before we were. That brings up a whole new plethora of questions that are just unanswerable by the current state of the Bible, and religion in general.

I've been forming my own opinion over the course of the past few years, and I think that we were quite literally planted here. However, that doesn't take away from my beliefs in a divine Creator, since even the beings that theoretically put us here have to believe in some creator. I'll be a Christian until the day I die, and nothing will ever change that. Even if some other race planted us here, someone had to have created them, and that someone was probably God. These beings didn't just create the universe, unless we run off onto another tangent and begin discussing M Theory.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join