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.

 

Proof of ET? Read the Bible!!

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

The Bible is not a history book.

The Bible is a book that contains fear, control, propaganda, bigotry, judgemental hatred and encourages blind, unquestionable faith. All this mixed with rumour, half-truths, fables, myths, second-hand and nth-hand eyewitness testimony. It's a book created by the ruling elite to control the serfs and unfortunately, it still rules a fair portion of the planet today - including the USA (In God We Trust printed on the currency).


I think quite a lot of this diatribe is pretty hard to justify, I must say. Why is it the Bible's fault you have "In God We Trust" on your dollar bills? It's certainly true that its text has been used as a reason for various actions by what you oddly call the "ruling elite" (why do you call them "elite" if you're so down on them, btw?). But blaming the book itself is a little dangerous, in my view. Blame belief, blame those who believe, but don't blame inanimate objects, it makes no sense.

The Bible is a worthy text for all sorts of reasons; archaeological, moral, historical, and linguistic to name but four. You may take issue with people's interpretation of its content if you wish, just as I take issue with some people's over-zealous interpretation of the latest Harry Potter novel, for example, but if you make the leap between that and some sort of conspiracy to mislead you are making a not dissimilar leap that various despotic regimes through history have made when they have banned, burned and blamed books for the wrongs of the society they have taken over. Bottom line, it's never the books fault - and hardly ever the author's - it's almost always the reader.

That aside, the central point about the interpretation of angels as "ETs" is interesting. Technically even a literal understanding of the concept of an angel would make them "ETs", I suppose, as in "not of this earth". But it's interesting that our word "Angel" comes via Latin from the Greek word for "messenger".

I would however take issue with the interpretations of Ezekiel above. To state those interpretations as fact is absurd - you may as well say the text is describing a pork pie.




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I would however take issue with the interpretations of Ezekiel above. To state those interpretations as fact is absurd - you may as well say the text is describing a pork pie.


I agree LoneWeasel, but it's just one persons way of interpretating it.

I'm not even religious. I don't believe in narrowing your views to one way. Anyway, that's another topic in itself. My point is, surely The Bible is there to be interpreted differently by different people all over the World? Although Christians would disagree with that I'm sure. Not just The Bible but any religious scriptures. But just like any ancient scriptures, as long as you find peace of mind and an understanding from the text that helps you progress and find strength in your life then I feel the job of the book is done.

If you feel what I was saying was fact, then sorry, it wasn't. Nothing is fact as far as I'm concerned from The Bible. How can we prove things? We can't. As humans we can only interpret what we read. And I don't even read it.

You should take a look at the Criss Angel thread. There's 2 morons there posting what they believe is true, just because it can't be explained. They say that's proof there's something supernatural going on. I struggle to understand how that's fact...but still...that's not what I was doing here.

I wasn't meaning for Ezekiel to sound factual and linked to a definite UFO sighting - just giving other pointers and possible relations to E.T's in The Bible. After all, that's what this thread is about right?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by umbracode

Originally posted by earth2
Without saying you believe in the Bible you have to give it a little credit since it is the oldest history book we have.
[edit on 23-7-2007 by earth2]


bible is just a bad "copy-paste" from the sumerian tablets.


And the Hindu Vedas are so old, nobody knows exactly how old they are. Portions of them could be more than 2,000 years older than the Bible. They are, however, pretty boring to read, as they were transcribed from chants that were designed as mnemonic devices, not literature.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
funny to be reading this today, I was thinking about this type thing yesterday. Wondering if maybe when "they" refer to the heavens it's not a kingdom in the clouds like we all imagine it but perhaps a completely advanced peaceful place far away from earth itself. Think about OBE and how some people who can do it have seen things on planets far away. Perhaps when you die and that silver cord detaches you can visit any these planets and even heaven. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is hell, Perhaps thats the whole reptilian planet or maybe just some planet with horrendous looking beings that we would associate with demons. I don't know these were just my random thoughts yesterday whilst on a delivery at work. And to comment on your statement about the bible being the oldest, wouldn't the bible be like 2007 - 2011 years old. As where books like the Iliad or the Oddessy be older, predating the bible by a couple hundred years?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
A couple of interesting stories in the Bible are not PROOF of anything. The most interesting aspect of the stories is how we, in our contemporary wisdom, project a contemporary 21st century interpretation on ancient stories. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ancients did not take their own stories completely at face value. Nothing in archaeology or what we know about the history of anciet times independently of the Bible leads us in that direction. Maybe they were all allegory with hidden meanings, but it will be tough to figure out. The point is that when the ancients wrote of gods and angels, that's probably what they meant. They didn't mean ETs and spaceships. The ancients didn't grow up with satellites and Saturn V launches. We did.

WE are the folks who put ETs and spaceships in the Bible. WE are taking our myths and interpreting the Bible in the light of them. The Sodom & Gommorah and Ezekiel interpretations have been around for some time. I think von Daniken mentioned Ezekiel in the 60's. They ARE interesting tales and there's no reason we can't speculate, but they do not constitute PROOF even a little bit.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Regardless of what religion, if any, you hold dear – most reference advance beings that descended from the heaven, or even "Sky Gods". I think over thousands of years much record has been lost in translation, or simply and conveniently "lost".

To most ancient civilizations, astronomy and knowledge of celestial bodies were "common knowledge" to a point that societies discovered (or at least knew of) planets that would not be physically discovered for centuries later through modern technology and mathematics.

One of the most convincing artifacts that lends creditability to lost and forgotten knowledge and more advanced civilizations is the Pyramids at Giza.

It's easy to see how people would misinterpret imagery that is described in the Bible two thousands years ago. Even more so, it's easy to see how religion took a foot hold in the middle ages with such descriptions of "Chariots of Fire." I think the Bible took on a most supernatural nature being that airplanes or even much advanced mechanical inventions didn't exist at that time.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Steal my theory will you, earth2!?


Well nice to see it got a thread of its own, anyway - i believe you!

(you might wanna start looking in other holy books too - i mean we already know the Torah provides evidence!)

evil person...

Hey - Who knows? Maybe the Ark was actually a spaceship!


edit: bitter sarcasm

[edit on 24-7-2007 by ScriptKiddie]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cibai



The oldest book by what means? A physical book printed or written on paper? Or oldest written book on some other materials for examples clay, stone, papyrus?

Whatever it is, Bible is NOT the oldest history book! And Torrah is not originated by Christianity nor Jews, it was a copy cat from Sumerians.

If those Gods and angels mentioned in Bible were aliens, then you have to believe alien had crossbred real human with alien DNA to make Adam. These aliens were not the real God and never created universe.





Hm, show me how and where the Torah was copied from Sumeria. Other than a couple of chapters in Genesis there isnt any similarities as far as I know to any Sumerian text.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by umbracode


bible is just a bad "copy-paste" from the sumerian tablets.


[edit on 24-7-2007 by umbracode]


Wow, has anyone here studied any history on the books of the Bible? Copy and Paste? Other than a couple of chapters in the Book of Genesis show me where any similarities exist.

[edit on 24/7/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
There's some good otherworldy wackiness related to religious texts in my thread "The Seven Earths" www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone here familiar with Ofanim?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

I wasn't meaning for Ezekiel to sound factual and linked to a definite UFO sighting - just giving other pointers and possible relations to E.T's in The Bible. After all, that's what this thread is about right?


Quite right, yes!

I'm surprised and a bit irritated by the level of contempt being shown to the Bible as a text, simply because people don't believe in its contents. It's like despising the Narnia books because you don't think there's really a lion called Aslan. In fact it's almost exactly like that, I suppose. Anyway, point is, I certainly don't hold any interpretations in contempt...as long as they're not presented as fact...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
A couple of interesting stories in the Bible are not PROOF of anything. The most interesting aspect of the stories is how we, in our contemporary wisdom, project a contemporary 21st century interpretation on ancient stories. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ancients did not take their own stories completely at face value. Nothing in archaeology or what we know about the history of anciet times independently of the Bible leads us in that direction. Maybe they were all allegory with hidden meanings, but it will be tough to figure out. The point is that when the ancients wrote of gods and angels, that's probably what they meant. They didn't mean ETs and spaceships. The ancients didn't grow up with satellites and Saturn V launches. We did.

WE are the folks who put ETs and spaceships in the Bible. WE are taking our myths and interpreting the Bible in the light of them. The Sodom & Gommorah and Ezekiel interpretations have been around for some time. I think von Daniken mentioned Ezekiel in the 60's. They ARE interesting tales and there's no reason we can't speculate, but they do not constitute PROOF even a little bit.



Us ancient-astronaut-theorists see it just the other way around: Ancient people did not have the technology and therefore INTERPRETED technology as being "gods" or "angels". But today, NOW that we know about technology we are no longer as naive and finally understand what the ancient people meant.

You say "nothing in archaeology leads us in that direction". To which I add: Nothing that YOU are aware of. Ever hear of the book "Forbidden Archaeology"?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You say "nothing in archaeology leads us in that direction". To which I add: Nothing that YOU are aware of. Ever hear of the book "Forbidden Archaeology"?


Yes, as a matter of fact. I have it and have read that long 914 page tome cover to cover. It is true, nothing that "I" am aware of, as you say. I only have a B.A. in archaeology, so I may not be as aware about the issues as some of you more advanced thinkers in the subject. Nevertheless, Forbidden Archaeology has nothing to do with ET. Nothing. It's not even mentioned in the book as a possibility. They show a lot of anomolous tidbits that have not been properly explained, much of which is stone age material. The authors are much more focused on ancient Indian civilization (as in the sub-continent) than anything else, though their research is wide-ranging. It is my belief that these anomolies point to ancient civilizations in the distant past along the lines postulated by Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods and Underworld; the mysterious origins of civilization, particularly the latter. The evidence seems to point to a civilization that was reaching the renaissance level when it was wiped out by "the" (Yup, same one) flood, which itself was caused by a melting polar ice dam holding back the waters of Hudsons Bay--but that's for another thread.

Once again, the title of this thread seems to suggest that reading the Bible PROVES ET. That supposition is nonsense. Placing the book Forbidden Archaeology up as proof against what I said originally is a non sequitur. It makes about as much sense as putting up Joy of Cooking to do the same thing.

[edit on 7/25/2007 by schuyler]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Once again, the title of this thread seems to suggest that reading the Bible PROVES ET. That supposition is nonsense. Placing the book Forbidden Archaeology up as proof against what I said originally is a non sequitur. It makes about as much sense as putting up Joy of Cooking to do the same thing.

[edit on 7/25/2007 by schuyler]


Yes, accepted. And its all in the way one formulates things. Rather than saying "The Bible proves ET" I would say "Ancient texts hint at the possibility of high civilisation and possibly technology back then". And then, to challenge you archaeologists I would add: "More than is admitted to by the current mainstream of archaeology".



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Yes, accepted. And its all in the way one formulates things. Rather than saying "The Bible proves ET" I would say "Ancient texts hint at the possibility of high civilisation and possibly technology back then". And then, to challenge you archaeologists I would add: "More than is admitted to by the current mainstream of archaeology".


I'm with you there. Mainstream archaeology is what gets printed in the peer reviewed journals and shown on sappy History Channel programs. Most archaeologists I know are very well aware that there are things they can't print for fear of losing their reputations within academia. Biblical archaeology (not my field), in particular, is rife with politics of all sorts. I wouldn't even want to be there.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join