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.

 

Reptilian DNA

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Assuming the two snakes were the two strands of DNA, the staff in the middle would be representative of the GATC inside of it, forming the building blocks of that DNA. Just a thought.




posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
No, I don't think I could debate him. He's a scholar and I'm just an avid reader. Big difference. I do reserve the right to disagree with him, however.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
No, I don't think I could debate him. He's a scholar and I'm just an avid reader. Big difference. I do reserve the right to disagree with him, however.


Not really , a scholar is just an avid reader with credentials. One of the smartest people I have ever met never even went to public school. He was declered mentaly retarded in his days and never had the chance to learn. He was later found autistic. He has read hundreds of books and takes them all literaly. I have had conversations with seasoned professors that would never have matched the conversations I have had with Dave.

I have read the material you posted before and am considering it. I will get back to you later tonight with a response to that. Now I am off to watch Leno and probably Conan if he's not a re-run.


Nutzo


Edit: After reading through your post Undomiel and reading the links that you provided, I am finding myself searching for even more answers.

I suppose this is the greatest thing of all when it comes to finding the answers to the biggest questions. I have been studying religion and pilosophy for many years now and every time I think I have come up with some sort of answer, the question is always changed.

My biggest problem is that I don't really know how to classify myself when someone asks me if I have a religion. I don't like to say Pagan or Witch. That just makes me appear like I am undetermined. And even though that is exactly the right conclusion, I don't like to admit it. And I don't know if I qualify as a Christian or if I should be so proud as to label myself with that name.

Most religions all believe in basicly the same thing, one supreme maker of things. Many religions differ in the way they are taught or the way they are practiced yet they are still the same in most ways.

One good example of how you can mix many religions into one tale is The Matrix. When this movie first hit our silver screens back in 1999 I was like, whoa! I knew from the first time that I saw it what I was watching. A Messiah story? Yes and no. The Matrix trilogy went on to end this way. But if you study the films you will see a mixture of Eastern and Western religions and a little world mythology and philosophy added into the mix as well.

What surprised me about these films was the fact that it is one of the only times in history that some one has told a tale of faith and love and used so many different forms of religious symbolism all at once and got away with it. It didn't matter what was to be believed, as long as you believed.

This is of course just an example, I am not trying to start a Matrix debate with anyone here at all.

My point is that most religions have the same fundamental foundations and all require faith.

I believe that Christ walked the Earth and that he was of importance to human kind. But does that make me a Christian? Maybe. Yet most Christians call my beliefs blasphomy and probably think me a heretic.

I also believe in many of the Eastern religious philosophy and fundamenal practices such as the Chi and auras. I believe in many things yet I have trouble believing in one thing.

I detest dogmatic practice of faith. I would never tell any one that the way they believe is wrong.

But to get back to topic of this thread, it makes one wonder what we are. I read what you have wrote and now I wonder even more. Being a Virgo I am damned to wonder. For these things we may never resolve.

This is what I want to believe:
We are here in this life enslaved to the flesh untill we transcend into the light from where we came. Once there we can become one again.

How and why we got here on this world in this vessel, is a never ending labyrinth of wonder.


Nutzo

[edit on 8-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
There are actually two symbols used by medical practitioners:
The Caduceus of Hermes (Greek) and Mercury (Roman) and The Staff of Asclepius (sclepius, Asklepios) [Personification of Medical or healing Art and its ideals]

Read about their origins and modern day use here: Link



The staff of Asclepius is considered the "true symbol of medicine" -- it features only one snake, and no wings.


Link

So the question is, which symbol should you be more trusting of? I'd probably go with the staff of Asclepius, since Asclepius probably was a real healer and ended up being indoctrinated into Greek godhood (as the Greek god of healing) by myth and legend.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Assuming the two snakes were the two strands of DNA, the staff in the middle would be representative of the GATC inside of it, forming the building blocks of that DNA. Just a thought.


Sounds possible to me. A 3-d representation of a DNA molecule is quite similar looking to a tree with fruit.
radar.ngcsu.edu...

Here's the simplified version which shows the snake like "sides" of the DNA ladder.
www.becomehealthynow.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1998OX4

Originally posted by nutzobalzo
Everyone has heard the story of the serpent in the garden and everyone knows that the serpent was regarded as the fallen angel Lucifer who probably had wings and everyone has seen the representation of DNA.

Do you think that this may be a subtle hint to our genetic make-up?

Hmm.
Nutzo


If that's the case, them maybe Adam was actually 'Atom' created on the Eve of birth of the planet. Maybe she got hungry and ate his rib. Maybe these jelly beans are supposed to taste like Chef boy-r-dee ravioli. Maybe Ronald Reagan was actually a woman and maybe we were supposed to take a dump out of our pores and not our backside. Meaning, maybe this is looking a little too deep.

The Caduceus vs the Staff of Asclepius:

drblayney.com...

Excerpt referenced from the above link:

"Despite the unequivocal claim of the staff of Asclepius to represent medicine (and healing), the caduceus, a rod with two entwined serpents topped by a pair of wings appears to be the more popular symbol of medicine in the United States, probably due to simple confusion between the caduceus and the staff of Asclepius, the true symbol of medicine. Many people use the word caduceus to mean both of these emblems." (Source: Dr Keith Blayney
MBChB; Dip Obst; FRNZCGP, 2000)

I tend to agree with Dr. Blayney. I believe the two serpents were either more asthetically pleasing (why not have one serpent when you can have two and throw in some wings while you are at it) or that there was honest confusion between the two in the centrys past.


[edit on 7-6-2004 by 1998OX4]


I read an interesting breakdown of this several years ago, that connected the caduceus and the staff of Asclepius with the Eye of Horus (EoH). In ancient Egypt, each part of the EoH was given a mathematical fraction



The reason for this was based on the story of Horus, whose eye was said to be torn to be pieces by Seth. His eye was reconstructed using mathematical fractions, which comes just short of a whole number: 63/64 ths. (different story involved as to the reason it wasn't a whole number). Anyway, the decorative symbols below the eye, are said to be the basis for the caduceus, the staff of Asclepius and Rx, which requires the knowledge of fractions in the process of healing with medicines.



I have misplaced the book that describes this, but suffice it to say, it ends up developing into the caduceus and the staff of Asclepius according to the text.


[edit on 8-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I have a theory about that, too. hehe (wheeee, do I think too much? Yeeeeeeeep). I believe there's a thread of truth that runs throughout all the religions of the planet. The primary reason for this is that truth, being what it is, is universal. Some say "What is truth?" I suggest they cross reference all the beliefs on the planet, and where they all agree, the probability is highly likely, that it's the truth. Most truth appears to be common sense, such as: Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't be jealous. Eat healthy. Practice hygiene. Learn to rein in your passions so they don't rule you, but you rule them. Mind over matter. Spirit over flesh. These seem like practical ideas! They certainly make living together easier.

Buddha was extremely sensible. That's what makes some of his teachings so easy to implement into our lives, as there's no end to the usefulness of common sense. Some often wonder, "What is common sense?" I suggest they cross reference all the teachings of wise men down thru history and you'll get a real firm grasp on what is common sense. It's usually self-evident, but even moreso, can be seen in some of the laws of our planet.

My personal take is, the laws of the Old Testament of the bible were guidelines for living and survival, as Noah's perfect generations had to be delivered intact to Jesus. It was dramatically different than the laws of ancient egypt, as Egypt was pantheistic (well except for that one pharaoh) and engaged in homosexuality, bisexuality, orgies, bestiality, pedophilia, pederasty, human sacrifice, necrophilia, idol worship, etc. With the exception of the current definition of pedophilia, the ancient Hebrews were taught not to practice these things. I believe this was because such practices not only caused trouble in the family unit and at the community level (jealousy and so on), but assisted in the spreading of disease, poor health, and mental disorders (one wonders what the allure of necrophilia could've possibly been - weren't nobody home!). Et. al, common sense, especially in a time where medicinal cures for such things were probably few and far between. The fact they were told not to worship things, seems fairly evident, as things are just...things and if the hebrews began to bicker amongst themselves about who's representation of "God" was the most applicable, the most lovely, the most costly, the civil unrest might prove deadly to the israelites (whose job it was to do what? deliver Noah's perfect generations to Jesus, and not to fight over whether God was best symbollized as a horse or a cow or a snake or a bird, etc). In fact, most of the Old Testament teachings about God were related to His ineffable being, thusly why He referred to Himself as simply "I am." (I might add, that statement refers to His eternal state of being).

Anyway, I am not saying that I think all the religions of the world are true, as I believe many are the result of the Annunaki/Fallen Angels infiltration and indoctrination of the people of our planet. I do, however, believe that they share common truths at some level and may even occassionally offer insight into other truths of our universe - either at the physical level or the spiritual or both.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
I suggest they cross reference all the beliefs on the planet, and where they all agree, the probability is highly likely, that it's the truth. Most truth appears to be common sense, .............

Some often wonder, "What is common sense?" I suggest they cross reference all the teachings of wise men down thru history and you'll get a real firm grasp on what is common sense. It's usually self-evident, but even moreso, can be seen in some of the laws of our planet.





I totally agree with all you have said. People today, especialy young people are trying hard to believe in something but they do not have the proper resources to make a determination on what to believe. They are told what to believe and expected to believe it. Some do and they become the typical "sheep" of the church. Not that I am saying that is bad. If that makes a person enlightened then by all means, pursue whatever works. The others go out in search for either enlightenment or what I like to call "endarkenment". They will listen to any one who has a suggestion on what they are supposed to do with their souls. Sometimes to devastating results. This is why brainwashing cults are so popular today . Young people need something to believe and the churches are not teaching them the truth. So many of them flock towards the Devil, or what they have idealised as the Devil.


I on the other hand can not listen to a man who tells me things and when I ask questions, he has no answers. If I ask my priest why I have visions or why I can sense things that others can not , he will tell me that I am possessed by Satan. If I tell my local parson that I read somewhere that Eve was not Adams first wife and that it was some creature named Lilith, will he tell me that I have done wrong by God by allowing such thoughts into me and I should pray for God to save my soul? "But the Jews believe this", I say " are the Jews going to Hell?" . "Yes son they are going to Hell if they do not believe what they are told. " Dogma. What if I am told that OJ Simpson is the Messiah, should I believe that too? Teach to me, don't preach to me.

I have had visions of the future since I was a child. I have seen things in my head that were going to happen and they did. I still can to this day. I have met people who claim to be witches and the like who tell me that I have a great gift and that I should hone that skill with the craft. Trust me, I am well read on that subject as well, and there is something to it. What made me smile when I read your last post is when you talk of common sense. For what people call clairvoyance or the 'gift' or psychic ability, I refer to as simply common sense.

I believe that when we close ourselves off from other angles of view in the world, let it be religion or culture or whatever, we lose that common sense that makes us powerful. When we open our mind to anything and at least try to understand it, we have that much more power over it.


Nutzo



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
From my perspective modern day witchcraft is a leftover remnant from the days of Jared, when Semjaza/An taught the women magic and the growing of herbs (I'm guessing it was pharmaceutical herbs that modified the thinking processes, rather than just healing herbs or herbs for cooking, although those were probably in evidence as well). This was likely the basis for what was later to be called witchcraft.

The practice of magic taught by Semjaza appears to be manipulation of the physical universe and nature. If you recall from our discussions regarding the Annunaki/Fallen Angels, the Fallen Angels cannot manipulate the spiritual realm, nor offer gifts from it, nor provide miracles from it, as they are trapped in the physical dimension, just as we are. They instead give power to their followers from the natural realm. The power is quite real, in my opinion, as real as nature itself. But there is more, much more, to the universe, to life, to the afterlife, than the physical and the manipulation thereof. It was for this reason that Moses defeated Pharaoh and Elijah defeated the prophets of Ba'al. Not because their opponents didn't have power, but because the power they employed was from the physical universe, which is superceeded by the spiritual universe. In short, there is a better way.

Now to be clear, in my opinion the practice of witchcraft is not "False" in the sense that it is not effective in some way, shape or form. I would be remiss to say that the experiences witches have had didn't really happen, as I'm quite sure many have had these experiences. And I would not say that they haven't done good things with it as well as bad. The question isn't does it happen, but is it a path you want to take as there are more paths than one, and the natural man, while a part of us, should not be our foremost guide.

We manipulate the physical dimension everyday, in fact, natural sciences, technology and medicine are 3 examples that closely skirt the definition of "witchcraft," and in some cases, could be said to be one and the same. So while I might disagree with the practice of witchcraft, it's moreso because I see no reason to "worship" nature, science, technology and medicine, when in fact, the wonders of the rest of eternity don't require any of them. They only make our lives here comfortable or interesting, but they are not required knowledge for eternity.

It might be pertinent to state here, that I believe eventually, everyone will be in "Heaven", as I don't believe God will punish "the unsaved" forever, even if it says He will. I think He will repent of this decision at some point. The reason I say this is, He refers to Himself as our Father, requires us to love Him and one another. He requires us to be compassionate. To be good parents, good children, good citizens, etc. And here's the clincher - He requires us to forgive. Repeatedly. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me that He would eventually end the punishment, as He loves us like a "father" loves his children and human fathers frequently forgive their children.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This topic has me thinking about Lucifer and his status as a previous angel. It was my understanding that the angels were missing the one thing that we humans have, free will. How was it that Lucifer was allowed to fall from grace. Angels were created for the sole purpose of worshiping God and each had a certain position in doing so. Lucifer was a thing of beauty who conducted the orchestra of heaven. The story goes that he let jealosy in his heart and this ultimately led to his fall along with half of the angels in heaven who followed him. If there was no free will for an angel, then how was this possible? Man fell because of jealosy (when the serpent told them that taking the forbidden fruit would make them like God) according to the Bible, but this is possible because we have free will. I would like someone with knowledge of the fallen angel theory to catch me up on that.

I do like the idea of our DNA changing when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden. We were in fact perfect and would be so today if not for the free will of man. This fall from grace changed everything in our physiological being. They would require a complete overhaul of our genes.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I'm not sure where you learned that angels don't have free will, but I'm assuming it was from some major theological source. Perhaps they were guessing? From what I can tell so far, there's no indication that angels don't have free will. Is it in scripture somewhere? If so, where? A key point like that should have some indication in scripture, I should think.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
I do like the idea of our DNA changing when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden. We were in fact perfect and would be so today if not for the free will of man. This fall from grace changed everything in our physiological being. They would require a complete overhaul of our genes.


I think we didn't have DNA at all, until the bad event in the Garden at the "Tree". When we "ate" of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we were cursed. I think that curse was DNA, which is a faulty program.

(Note: I had to edit out a huge chunk of this post. After re-reading Genesis 3, I am perplexed about a few verses. One in particular really caught my eye, and I need to mull it over for a bit. I'll get back to you on this)


[edit on 8-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
would like someone with knowledge of the fallen angel theory to catch me up on that.


I have read that Angels , such as gaurdian Angels can help to guide us , but can not change our free will. So it would be suffice to say that neither can demons. Like Morpheus said, " I can only show you the door...". lol , another Matrix analagy? Hehee. OK I'll stop. Wax on wax off. Big a circle.

Here is an interesting site that I found about Angels called Angelology. This is a page that speaks of the free will. Have a look through the site , it is quite well written and beautifuly displayed.


Nutzo



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   
This verse really puzzles me, as it sounds very.....strange. It is also a point of contention between those who say the instance of "Us" in "Behold, the man has become like one of us" proves that God was more than one person, and therefore God (singular) was Gods (plural). I'd like to discuss this verse here, as I think there's a few pivotal points to be made in this verse, what it is I'm not entirely sure. Having in my possession access to the original Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Chaldean and Aramic translations for the words of the bible in Strong's Concordance, helps somewhat, but there are still very odd things happening in this verse. I here offer it in different versions. I try to cross reference these pieces of information with the interpretations of modern day scholars as well, but it seems best not to let give such things too much sway unless they can be substantiated by other scriptures and/or translations from the original languages the bible was written in.

Genesis 3:
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: - King James Version

Genesis 3:
22 And YHVH ELOHIYM said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: - Sacred Name King James Version

Genesis 3:
22 et ait ecce Adam factus est quasi unus ex nobis sciens bonum et malum nunc ergo ne forte mittat manum suam et sumat etiam de ligno vitae et comedat et vivat in aeternum - Latin Vulgate

Genesis 3:
22 And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,` - Young's Literal Translation

Genesis 3:
22 And HaShem G-d said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.' - The Jewish Bible (Torah, Berei#h)

According to the Hebrew translation in Strong's Concordance, the word LORD in this verse translates as follows:

Yhovah
yeh-ho-vaw'
from 'hayah' (1961); (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 'Yahh' (3050), 'Yhovih' (3069).

And the word "God" translates as:

'elohiym
el-o-heem'
plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Sadly, I haven't been able to find what the original word for "us" was in that verse, but I did find a listing in Strong's Concordance for various hebrew uses of the word "us":

587 'anachnuw an-akh'-noo apparently from 595; we:--ourselves, us, we.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
589 'aniy an-ee' contracted from 595; I:--I, (as for) me, mine, myself, we, X which, X who.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
595 'anokiy aw-no-kee' sometimes [aw-no'-kee]; a primitive pro.; I:--I, me, X which.

The first instance 587 refers to "us" as "we", which would confirm plural usage of LORD God. The second and third instances would confirm singular usage of the word "us", which is itself an oddity - why not just say "me" or "I" instead of "us" if it was meant to be singular? If you'll notice in 587 above, anachnuw "us" derives from the more primitive 595 anokiy "I" or "me". If anyone happens to have access to the translation which shows the original hebrew usage for the word "us" in that verse, could you list it here? This is an important piece of information that needs clarifying. The answer I'm looking for is: is "us" in that sentence translated "anachnuw" or "anokiy" or something else entirely? Or if anyone has a link to a version of Strong's Concordance online, that lists the hebrew translation for ALL the words in Genesis 3: 22, that'd be even better.

It seems also odd, that both the singular "Yhovah" and the plural "Elohiym" are used, when the option is available to address something entirely in the singular. It does say in the "elohiym" translation that it was also used as "God," singular, but with 2 words possibly referring to the plural in the same sentence, I need some confirmation as the actual usage of "us" in the sentence in order to reach a conclusion. Although, proving that it was in the plural has no bearing on the final conclusion, since most christians feel the plural in this sense refers to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but I still require the "us" translation due to the rest of the verse. The reason: because of the implication!

If it is "us" plural, from a christian perspective, it would mean that we were very close to salvation at that exact moment. That the opportunity to be like God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit presented itself right then in the form of the Tree of Life, and was with held until the end of Revelation.

Of equal interest is the fact the Tree of Life (I wonder what this is? Don't tell me phallus or I'll be forced to thrash you verbally. Seriously, yes life comes from procreating, no life does not revolve around your *ahem* manhood
I know it might seem like that, but honestly, there's more to life than s. e. x. believe it or not. If God is indeed a supreme being, He would be capable of and well aware of the ability to create life without a phallus, so let's avoid that interpretation for the time being ) is in evidence nowhere else in the bible except in both the BEGINNING (Genesis) and the END (Revelation) Gen 2:9, Gen 3:22, Rev 2:7, Rev 22:14 . 2 times in Genesis and 2 times in Revelation.

The instance of the Tree of Life in Genesis is qualified as the feminine singular form for "life" in the Hebrew and referred to as "her" in Revelation 22:14, so it would be the singular feminine "Tree of Life." Were this referring to procreation of human beings, with holding of it would not be in evidence as we have been procreating for millenia, and yet it says the way to the Tree of Life was barred from humans until Revelation 22: 14. Obviously it's in reference to something more than a literal phallus. Thusly ends the fable that the bible is about p e n i s worship. Conversely, it can't be about the uterus either, for the same exact reasons.

Just what IS the Tree of Life? When taken into consideration while comparing it to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it appears to have something to do with our bodies as well. This is a real conundrum, as the interpretation is "singular" but appears to have an overall effect on our bodies - such as the Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is a thought process and not a physiological reaction such as orgasm or breathing. If the concept that the snake in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represented "DNA", and the Tree of Life contains no DNA, then how can it be considered "Life", as all living human and many animals contain DNA as the basis of their life? The Tree of Life is therefore referring to another state of being besides life in a human body.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Perhaps the tree of life represents procreation in general. The ability to make life.

I have noticed as well the many instances of plural God.


Elohim

The term Elohim is plural for god and is used 216 times in the Old Testament for gods and 2366 times for God. The singular form of Elohim is Eloah and is used 55 times in place of God.

Yehovah

Lord translates to Yehovah over 6,400 times in the Old Testament

Adonay

Lord translates to Adonay to denote the god of Israel. It is used 430 times in the Old Testament, with Ezekiel counting for over 200 times.

Adon

Lord translates to Adon 211 times.


There are many Baals as well. Baal, meaning lord.

Genesis 36:38
And Saul died, and Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.

Exodus 14:9
But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.

Numbers 25:5
And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

Numbers 32:38
And Nebo, and Baalmeon, and Shibmah gave other names unto the cities which they builded.

Judges 2:11
And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim


Judges 8:33
And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baalberith their god.

2 Kings 1:3
But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron?




And many Baals were cities named for Gods, Baalperazim,Baalshalisha.....



There has been much debate about this.


Nutzo



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Since Revelation hasn't been fulfilled in its entirety yet, it can't be about procreation in human bodies, as the Tree of Life is blocked from us until the end of Revelation. Also procreation doesn't allow one to live forever, because the genetic code of the parents combine to form a totally new and unique DNA sequence - and there's no DNA in that tree. This would also lay to rest the concept that we would eventually learn how to make DNA that had no errors, and thusly we would live forever. If the original idea that the serpent was DNA is true, then the lack of it in the Tree of Life would lay that idea to rest as well OR the idea that DNA represented the serpent would have to be false. I'll get back to you on the Ba'al thing after I've had a chance to study it out.

[edit on 10-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It appears as if Baal is more than one diety. He was a phoenician diety and a canaanite diety. He was in several forms, including Baal'zebub (Baal of the Fly - a god of the Ekronites). In this instance the word Baal simply means lord or Lord. This would typically be given to any god as a "master" or "idol" of the people, depending on the point of origin of the people at the time. If the hebrews were in captivity, they might use the local title for lord or Lord (in this instance, "baal" or "Baal", when discussing Jehovah between themselves or others. It's too broad of a word to apply it specifically to the hebrew God, Jehovah Elohiym. Any male of the species could be referred to as lord or Lord. In fact, I know a guy who's name is Lance Lord. lol That's his real name. At one point, the hebrews worshipped the god "Baal" and were reprimanded by Jehovah Elohiym, as that "god" was not Jehovah Elohiym, but a god of another place. Elijah went up against the prophets of Baal.

For example, in I Kings 16:

30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that [were] before him.

31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went4 and served Baal, and worshipped him.

32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.

This instance of "Baal" is phoenician gods more precisely known as Baalim and not the hebrew Jehovah Elohiym.

Here's an excerpt of the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal:

I Kings 18:

21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him. And the people answered1 him not a word.


22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, [even] I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets [are] four hundred and fifty men.


23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay [it] on wood, and put no fire [under]:


24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.


25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire [under].


26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed [it], and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But [there was] no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.


27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he [is] a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, [or] peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.


28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.


29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the [time] of the offering of the [evening] sacrifice, that [there was] neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.


30 And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD [that was] broken down.


31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:


32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.


33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid [him] on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour [it] on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.


34 And he said, Do [it] the second time. And they did [it] the second time. And he said, Do [it] the third time. And they did [it] the third time.


35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.


36 And it came to pass at [the time of] the offering of the [evening] sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou [art] God in Israel, and [that] I [am] thy servant, and [that] I have done1 all these things at thy word.


37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.


38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed4 the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that [was] in the trench.
----

Kinda obvious that Baal (and in this case, Baalim) was not Jehovah Elohiym of Israel.


[edit on 10-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   
It is confusing. No doubt. So if we are to narrow the list down to one creator of things, or even the first instance of a God in the Bible or other texts, what would the word be?


Nutzo



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
For continuity purposes, the word god or gods is interchangeable with goddess or goddesses (when in lower case), as many of the pantheistic religions contained both a male and female god or just a female god or just a male god. Jehovah Elohiym was only referred to in the male aspect because of the order of creation (man first, then woman), not because Jehovah Elohiym was a man - He was not a man nor was He a woman - He was a transcended being, an ineffable creator. Gender is only a part of the natural realm and I see no evidence in scripture to prove otherwise. Perhaps there is, but I don't see it.

It isn't confusing to me at all that Baal is not God. See, the hebrew people took part in worshipping false gods as well, so any instance in which they refer to God as Baal, they are referring to a false god they are worshipping OR are using the name interchangably, like we use the word "lord" or "Lord." Lord Byron is an example of such usage of the word, but they appear to use it when they were in a fallen state themselves, are worshipping the false gods of the Phoenicians or Canaanites, or are in captivity (I think even in captivity they secretly referred to God as Jehovah Elohiym or the unknown God, rather than the god or gods of their captors). But as a noun, Baal in his many forms, including the phoenician Baalim, was not Jehovah Elohiym. Think of it like this: Let's say at some point the King (in the verses above Ahab was the King of Israel and he was leading the people into worshipping the false god, Baal) of the hebrew people decided the national religion would be Baal worship, the people would use the words related to Baal worship instead of those related to worshipping Jehovah Elohiym. Baal worshippers would naturally refer to Baal as Lord or God in the proper sense, as they would believe he was God instead of Jehovah Elohiym. But he's not God, never was. He was originally a Fallen Angel/Annunaki who started a false religion.

This ties right back to my initial contention that Jehovah Elohiym predates the gods (Fallen Angels/Annunaki) of ancient Sumeria cuneiform by several generations. Remember the post about An, Ki and Enlil? Baal is derived from the worship of Enlil. And I have already shown you how Enlil was an Annunaki/Fallen Angel and that Jehovah Elohiym predates him in an earlier post of mine (remember it?). You can see how the history of this event as outlined in the Book of I Enoch and Genesis 6, is very important, and how because this I Enoch was not included in the bible, much confusion resulted regarding the correct historical events of the Beginning of human existence and who "God" was.

If you recall Moses asked God what His name was at the burning bush, as the hebrews did not have a name for Him - He was the unknown God, the ineffable God, the God that insisted the people not make idols or fetishes of Him, the God that kept redirecting the people's attention from matters of the flesh and the natural realm to eternal matters (you know, it makes sense, why focus so completely on the flesh that you know nothing at all of the rest of your future, which is endless?). Jehovah Elohiym's response to Moses' question was "I am." I'm sure that answer started alot of deep thinking and amazing conversation amongst the hebrews, way back then.

So to answer your question then, I would have to say that since God knows better than us what to call Himself, "I am," is the most applicable name of God from the Old Testament, the creator of all things. However, scripturally, He was called Jehovah Elohiym in the creation story, which is the earliest story of the bible. So there's 2 possible answers to your question:

1. The name He gave Himself in the Old Testament - "I am that I am" or simply "I am". Perhaps another way to say "The Eternal God."
2. The name the Old Testament texts gave Him - "Jehovah Elohiym" or "Jehovah" or "Elohiym" (which means LORD (Jehovah) God (Elohiym))

Yep, the Fallen Angels really made a mess of things with their false religions and the offspring nephilim. The resulting confusion had a powerful impact, thusly another reason why I think eventually everyone will be in Heaven, as the forces aligned against humanity were vast and God is, afterall, a just God. It even says in scripture it is His WILL that none should perish but have everlasting life. Sounds good to me!



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel


It isn't confusing to me at all that Baal is not God.

This ties right back to my initial contention that Jehovah Elohiym predates the gods (Fallen Angels/Annunaki) of ancient Sumeria cuneiform by several generations. Remember the post about An, Ki and Enlil? Baal is derived from the worship of Enlil. And I have already shown you how Enlil was an Annunaki/Fallen Angel and that Jehovah Elohiym predates him in an earlier post of mine (remember it?).


So to answer your question then, I would have to say that since God knows better than us what to call Himself, "I am," is the most applicable name of God from the Old Testament, the creator of all things. However, scripturally, He was called Jehovah Elohiym in the creation story, which is the earliest story of the bible. So there's 2 possible answers to your question:

1. The name He gave Himself in the Old Testament - "I am that I am" or simply "I am". Perhaps another way to say "The Eternal God."
2. The name the Old Testament texts gave Him - "Jehovah Elohiym" or "Jehovah" or "Elohiym" (which means LORD (Jehovah) God (Elohiym))

Yep, the Fallen Angels really made a mess of things with their false religions and the offspring nephilim. The resulting confusion had a powerful impact, thusly another reason why I think eventually everyone will be in Heaven, as the forces aligned against humanity were vast and God is, afterall, a just God. It even says in scripture it is His WILL that none should perish but have everlasting life. Sounds good to me!


I totlally agree with you about the Baals. This was a prefix given to beings that were looked on as Gods. Baalzebub, Lord of the skies. Baal can also mean 'Master'. They obviously had super-human powers to be recognized as Gods. I think these Baals were probably the same race as Goliath and the Philistines and Gittites. Most likely the Annunaki.

My problem with Elohim is the fact that there are instances in the Bible where Elohim is used to represent multi-Gods. John 10:34.35


Jehova. Many false Gods and deities are mentioned using this name. Most likely because that is what the Annunaki wanted. To destroy Gods name.

Hebrew: "Ki YHVH Eloheichem Hoe Elohei ha'elohim v'adonei ha'adonim"
literally: For YHVH your God He God of the gods & Lord of the lords Deut. 10:17

There are so many names but which would be exclusive?

El (God)
Examples of El:
El 'Elyon ("most high God"), El Shaddai ("God Almighty"), El 'Olam ("everlasting God"), El Hai ("living God"), El Ro'i ("God of seeing"), El Elohe Israel ("God, the God of Israel"), El Gibbor ("Hero God"). In addition, names such as Gabriel ("Hero of God"), Michael ("Who is Like God"), and Daniel ("God is My Judge") use God's name in a similar fashion.
Elohim (Gods)
Emet (Truth)
Tzur Yisrael (The Rock of Israel)
Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Yaacov (God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob)
Avinu Malkeinu (Our Father, our King)
Ro'eh Yisrael (Shepherd of Israel)
Ha-Kadosh, Baruch Hu (The Holy One, Blessed be He)
Melech ha-Melachim (The King of Kings)
Makom (The Omnipresent)
Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham)
YHVH (The Lord) Yehova, Jehova
The Tetragrammaton (Judaism, Lord)
Adonai ( Judaism, My Lord)
Shalom ( Peace)


I would say that you are right and that YHVH is Gods real name. But it has been taken and used to represent "other Gods" so it has been tainted. So what shall we call him? I like your idea.

Ehiyeh sh'Ehiyeh (I Am That I Am)

I am.



Nutzo

[edit on 11-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join