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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Soon we will have enough material for a book in this thread. lol

I like how we are questioning word origins. Most people go along the day without thinking for a second about how a certain word came to be.

It is important in our quest. Words tell all. One could say, well that word doesn't mean what you are implying. But the truth is, if it is close, then it probably has relation.

I have been learning Latin for the past few years. It is a hard language to learn considering it isn't used anymore. I find that most of the English language has been derived from Latin. It was a good language as well.

I believe that at some point the English language was created to hide true meanings. Much like the King James Bible has mis-tranlated much of the Bible. Their reasoning was so it would be easier for English speaking folk to understand. Translating from Aramaic to Latin is much easier than from Aramaic to English. Of course Latin is becoming one of those mis-translated languages and it isn't even that old.

I also believe that if they have to 'dumb-down' words for English speaking people to understand them, then perhaps English wasn't an acceptable language. And now we have another form of English that is even that much more confusing, the American language. I wonder if it was created just for this purpose. To confuse. The truth is, most people do not need the Bible 'dumbed-down'. But for some reason they did it anyway.

But we have research and with todays technology it has become easier to do this research. So keep up the good work people. I think we are on the brink of something here.



Nutzo



[edit on 17-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]




posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Great investigative work, but once again I suggest that you are finding what you want in these verses (or someone you were studying did) rather than a logical train of reasonable translations. For example, the word adom can mean several different things but you choose to apply it to Adam's skin color when the references to him being made from the earth seem to be the focal point, rather than his skin color.

Also, genetic studies have isolated "mitochondrial Eve" to Africa. You don't suggest she was also white? Please spare me the incredible strangeness of such an interpretation, as she was most definitively BLACK. Sitchin's own interpretation of the Annunaki, claims they mixed Annunaki genetics with Homo erectus. Where do you think he got such a fanciful interpretation? He's trying really hard to get Theosophy and Science to match his world view and had to give his Aliens the power of creation of Homo sapians. Sounds very much like the nephilim to me and not humans. In fact, he proves my point, that the Annunaki tried to take credit for the creation of the human race when in fact, they created mutations such as the nephilim.

There are several points of information in your post that I would like to address, but until we finish the topic of Adam's skin color we better stick to this topic (so please stay on topic so I don't accidentally follow you off in some other direction and the thread loses cohesiveness).

BTW, are you trying to establish that the caucasian race were the wardens of the planet? I need to know this before we continue. (And also, before I forget, how do you think the native american indians fit into this?)



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Check out this link on the Rense site about DNA and tell me what you think.

It sounds a little 'X-Menish' but I like their take on the virus.



PR: Are these children displaying any characteristics different from other children?

BF: These are children who can move objects across the room just by concentrating on them, or they can fill glasses of water just by looking at them. THEY'RE TELEPATHIC. You would almost think by knowing these children that they are half angelic or superhuman, but they're not. I think they are what we are growing into during the next few decades.

BF: The easiest way to mutate our DNA is through a virus. Consequently viruses are not necessarily bad. Viruses live only on living tissue. DNA viruses like Epstein Barr and the Herpes #6 change cellular structure. The retro virus HIV is not a DNA virus. Instead of mutating the body, it actually eats it up. Most people who go through this process and come out the other side have a new profession, a new way of thinking, or at least a starting of a new way of life.

Even though they may feel really sick, tired, or hopeless at times, it is a gift. They are being given a chance to change their DNA structure and their body into a lighter, healthier body that can see them into the next generation. The angels that are being seen are signs that we are shifting. As I understand it, WE HAVE UNTIL ABOUT 2012 TO COMPLETE THIS PROCESS.



It is straying a little from the Biblical conversation here but it still represents the topic.

Also scroll to the bottom where it talks of MANY TEMPORARY PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS . I swear this refers to me. lol

We are evolving.


Nutzo



[edit on 17-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
The Book Of Enoch There's copies all over the web, and easily attainable. One thing I gotta tell you though, when I read it, my impression was that the Nephilim were errant angels who sinned by falling in love with our women.

Hey, read it anyway. I didn't give away TOO MUCH of the plot.


[edit on 17-6-2004 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
The Book Of Enoch There's copies all over the web, and easily attainable. One thing I gotta tell you though, when I read it, my impression was that the Nephilim were errant angels who sinned by falling in love with our women.

Hey, read it anyway. I didn't give away TOO MUCH of the plot.


[edit on 17-6-2004 by Toelint]



I'm glad to see that you removed your Compton Enyclopedia comment.

I don't believe that we are dicussing common beliefs on this thread. We are discussing what we have come to believe and the research that has led us to these conclusions.

Personally I do not refer to the Comptons Encyclopedia to find such knowledge.

I am still up in the air about what the Nephilim actually were myself. Wandering Angels? I doubt it. Undomiel and Kriskaos has given some great insight on this thread about this. I am closely in agreeance with her perspective on the issue of Nephilim. It is possible that the Nephilim were Angel/human hybrid however.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the entire thread.


Nutzo



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I thought you might like this link based around your topic below. Very interesting theories.

I heard from one of the downloads from this site that Moses had a brass serpent nailed to his staff. Brass is found to mean judgment to the early hebrews. Scholars believe it means (sin judged). Later the early hebrew began to worship the staff as an idol then it had to be destroyed.

The medical symbol, which is from the symbol of hermes the god of commerce$ I have no idea why a naval medical officer choose that symbol for medicine? Maybe this is why it costs so much to go to the doctor?

www.khouse.org...

Check out this guys bio.
www.khouse.org...

He is definiately well read and must know a thing or two about this subject. Maybe?

Cheers,



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
We were created as fully eternal beings ---> only. When the serpent spoke in the Garden it was to entice us to become DNA-based flesh and bone, to don "temporary skins" of DNA, when we had been without the need for error-ridden flesh and bone prior to that. Our eternal bodies became encased in these temporary faulty husks that experience aging and death and pain when once they did not. We were betrayed into putting our eternal selves into a genetic program that was faulty with a capital "F"!

We were not already in these temporary bodies when DNA was introduced - our bodies were still eternal bodies. It wasn't a rape, it was a betrayal with dire consequences. Like putting on a new outfit, we stepped into the faulty program (DNA) against God's commands, and found ourselves cursed by our own choices. When He said, "you will die if you eat of that tree", He wasn't kidding - He meant "You will experience pain and death if you choose that DNA, if you interface with that program!" This, however, does not mean we are all children of Lucifer nor that the Jews were all children of Lucifer, as Lucifer is not DNA. The serpent analogy is simply to emphasize that we put on skins in the form of DNA, in direct violation of God's original meaning for our existence. It also does not make Lucifer's involvement any less significant nor does it make him null and void as if he never existed nor does it mean he was simply a DNA strand, it simply implies this attribute is one of Lucifer's gifts to us, as part of God's creation. I envision it sort of like the spirit of Lucifer speaks from a 3-d like representation of a DNA molecule, and even though told not to interface with it, we still do, to our own temporary DNA prisons.

I got a sneakin' suspicion I know where your theory is heading. Might I add, I do believe we are going to disagree on this subject.

[edit on 6-6-2004 by Undomiel]

That is a very interesting premise and I have been taught something similar before. Funny, before a premise like this would have looked on as a joke or esoteric nonsense. Do you think that our next evolvement is coming to a head?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I think as you put it caucasians became the wardens of the planet after asiatics/color/blacks "fell out of grace". I believe the science they had was passed through initiation to harvest these secrets of the ages until they can be harvest by the originators again. These premise you are introducing reminds me of the story of Yacub/Island of Dr. Moreau.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Maybe the blackman ruled the planet for a while, then it was the caucasians turn, whos next?

Isn't the blackman the original human? After all is the word HU-MAN not representive of COLOR-MAN. (HUE-MAN = man of colour).

Are Humans and man-kind the same thing? sorry I am going a bit OT here.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Maybe the blackman ruled the planet for a while, then it was the caucasians turn, whos next?

Isn't the blackman the original human? After all is the word HU-MAN not representive of COLOR-MAN. (HUE-MAN = man of colour).

Are Humans and man-kind the same thing? sorry I am going a bit OT here.

Wow you hit pretty close! Human or Hueman or humane is not the same as mankind as mankind denotes a KIND of MAN. Something not exactly like a human. The "blackman" Moor-Mauros etc is original but supposedly he is preceded by a nighe form(alien-ancestors?) It's all very intriguing. I am still studying. Do we ever stop?!



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
I'll have to do a study on Elohiym as plural. I know the hebrews also used the plural form as a singular form as well for that particular word, but I would be remiss not to check into it further so I can comment on it at length.

BTW, check out this spiffy painting by Boris Vallejo of "Elijah" prophets of Baal. The painting is Gorgeous! But he doesn't show the intensity of the event, as it says the fire consumed everything on the altar, including the altar (which was much bigger than depicted here), and all the water in the trench around it as well. No doubt a spectacular light show.



[edit on 11-6-2004 by Undomiel]

I have seen Elohim as a plural in what I think was called Strongs Concordance? El which is also a title is considered to be a group. I as defined in this concordance (Hebrew) is also plural. Sound familiar?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Nutzo, I agree that English has problems. Much of this is due to it being an amalgamation of a few different languages: English, Latin, Danish (Danes invaded Britain in the 8th century A.D.), French (1099 Norman Conquest), and perhaps more. More Latin and Greek derived words were added during the Renaissance. I believe this blending of different tongues is one of the major reasons for all the unusual difficulties presented by English. It is actually the most difficult language in the world for most foreigners to learn (correctly anyway).

One thing I find very interesting is the evidence for the possibility that many English words have been derived from Hebrew. Here's a few examples (defintions from the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as usual).

God
1419 gadol, a. great, large; much, more; this can refer to physical size, quantity, degree and social status (great king, high priest)

Eye
5869 'ayin - eye; by extension: sight; spring, fountain

Sack
8242 saq - sackcloth; sack

Skill
7919 sakal, v. to have success; to cross (the hands and arms in an extended motion); to have insight wisdom, understanding; to prosper, be successful; the potent capacity to understand and so exercise skill in life, a state caused by proper training and teaching, enhanced by careful observation

Pig
6292 piggul, n.m. (ceremonially) unclean meat, kept too long after a sacrifice

Call
6963 qol - sound, voice, noise; lightness (i.e., frivolity or light-heartedness)

Here's links to Ancient Hebrew language resource site which show the possible Hebrew derivation of more English words, as well as the Ancient Hebrew origin of the 'Latin' alphabet (the modern Hebrew characters are actually

www.ancient-hebrew.org...
www.ancient-hebrew.org...

Here's a couple more links which show that Hebrew was actually the mother of the phonetic alphabets (most scholars claim that Phoenicians developed the first phonetic alphabet - hence the name - , but I believe they are either mistaken or deliberately lying).

www.ancientscripts.com...
www.omniglot.com...

An important thing to consider here is that ancient Phoenicia (based in the coastal cities of Tyre and Sidon) was just north of Israel in what is what is now Lebanon.

And here's some webpages that show similarities between the Celtic and Hebrew languages.

www.1335.com...
www.geocities.com...

Some even claim that the Celts and the Chaldeans are the same people. Celts is pronounced "Kelts" and Chaldean could also be as written "Khaldean", while "T" and "D" are etymologically interchangeable. I recommend you start researching some of the Lost Tribes of Israel info available online and at least see what you think about it. I've started a thread about it in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations section, and I can also provide you with some links if you want.


X-Kids
As for the children who may be developing psychic or supernatural powers, I don't believe this is the result of evolution. If this is indeed occurring, it is most likely the result of genetic manipulation by the fallen angels/aliens. This is sort of thing is probably one reason for all the reported abductions and implants.

Sure, it's exciting to think about humans developing the powers of telepathy, telekinesis, flight, and so forth, but I can guarantee you that any powers the Annunaki 'gift' people with will pale in comparison to the powers and abilities granted to Yahweh's children after the return of His Son Yahshua with His saints. Yahshua tells us we will be like "the angels of God in heaven" after the resurrection (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:36). The Gospel of Luke further records the resurrected saints/followers of Yahshua are "equal unto the angels".

KJV Philippians 3:20-21
20 For our conversation [politeuma - citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ [Yahshua HaMashiach]:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:42-45
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Comic books like X-Men and Anime like Dragonball Z are mere shadows of what the resurrected sons and daughters of Yahweh Elohim will be capable of. Those who have shown themselves worthy (by placing their faith in Yahshua and enduring to the end) will be granted unimaginable rewards in the future Kingdom.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Undomiel, please be patient. I hope to address your questions soon. I just want to get some less complicated issues raised by others out of the first.

Hello, GidledHammer.

I've listened to Chuck Missler on the radio and the internet quite a bit in the past. He's a smart guy, and the only mainstream Christian minister I know of (besides Hugh Ross of www.reasons.org) who has honestly addressed the Nephilim issue. The problems I have with his ministry is that he still preaches the false doctrine of the pre-Tribulation rapture, and he believes that the modern Jews are basically all that remain of the nation of Israel.

Also, you mentioned the "brass serpent" (nachash nechoshet - nechoshet actually means "copper or bronze") which Moses was instructed to "set upon a pole" (KJV) or "mount upon a standard" (JPS Tanakh). The event recorded in Numbers chapter 21 is definitely rather curious. I'd like to address that issue, but I'd also like to have Undomiel's help with deciphering its true meaning, so I'll have to wait until later to dive into it. Don't worry, I trust that Yahweh will help me to remember. I already have some of my thoughts about it saved in a word-processing file.

Okay, Undomiel, I'm going to start working on my response to your last post soon.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Undomiel, I'll grant you that the Hebrew 'adam could just be referring to the color of the earth out of which the man was formed rather than his skin color. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish certain technical details about the ancient past.

Evolution and Anthropology
As far as the Mitochondrial Eve theory goes, there may be some truth to it, but I don't buy into it completely. The people that claim all races originated from the mutations of one group of humans who migrated out of Africa are the same people who claim that humans evolved from apes. If many humans of different races do share a common ancestor, I believe it's just as likely due to interbreeding of causcasians, blacks, and Asians over the ages as it is to the idea that we are all originally descended from the same parents.

I realize that it is extremely unpopular (and practically considered evil) these days to talk about differences between the races or to suggest that we are not all the same. But I wonder if the general prohibition against investigating the idea that each of the three main root races of man - black, Asian, and caucasian - had differenent origins does, in fact, have the primary purpose of preventing humans from discovering the 'otherwordly' origins of certain people? There are men and women on this earth who have more than a passing amount of Reptilian or Annunaki DNA in their genetic make-up, which means they cannot be strictly classified as 'human'. Perhaps the restrictions and taboos in place against examining the genetic differences between humans have been put in place to discourage scientists from discovering the characteristics which would identify a 'human' being as a Reptilian or Nephilim-human hybrid?


BTW, are you trying to establish that the caucasian race were the wardens of the planet? I need to know this before we continue. (And also, before I forget, how do you think the native american indians fit into this?)


Well, whether or not Adam was a caucasian, Genesis does seem to say that he was put into the garden of Eden to "keep it". As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word shamar can also be translated as "watch" or "guard", so Adam could be said to have been a warden of sorts. He also apparently had some amount of authority over everything/one else in the garden, as Yahweh permitted him to name to every "beast [chay - life] of the field", etc. (Genesis 2:19-20). Most people assume that all the other beings in the garden were animals, but, if that's the case, why would Yahweh even bother to look for "a help meet for him" amongst them?

The Native Americans
According to what I've learned, the Americas were known of and travelled to by ancient peoples and civilizations. The Olmecs (black Africans) have already been mentioned in this thread. We know about the pyramids of Mexico, and I think Nutzo also mentioned the discovery of coc aine in the bodies of Egyptian mummies. I've read "The Histories" by Herodotus. In his book he reports that some in his time believed a river existed that went all the way around the world which they called "the Ocean". He had also heard stories about the Phoenician sailors who circumnavigated the continent of Africa even before his time. Now, the Phoenicians were the best mariners and most skilled navigators of the ancient world. They were so proficient at sailing that, after having discovered the British isles, they were able to evade any ships that tried to follow them there (in order to discover the location of the lucrative tin mines).

Furthermore, Hiram king of Tyre (a Phoenician) had a treaty with King Solomon. Hiram not only helped Solomon to build the famous temple at Jerusalem, his navy also cooperated with Solomon's (see 1 Kings 9:26-28; 10:11, 21-22). Wherever the Phoenician navy sailed, Solomon's navy went with them. In addition to certain black Africans (Olmecs), I believe that the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews were all making sea voyages to the Americas in ancient times. There's even some evidence that the Celts did as well (see thecoracle.tripod.com...). So, the theory is that these peoples in combination with the Pacific Islanders and Asians who migrated to the Americas from the west (in relation to America) all contributed to the origin of the Native American peoples.

But the knowledge of the location of the Americas and how to cross the Atlantic was probably (mostly) lost after the destruction of the Phoenician North African colony of Carthage by the Romans. The influx of Semitic peoples (caucasians?) to the Americas ended for some time, so eventually the Asian strains began to predominate amongst the Native Americans. Whether the story in the Book of Mormon about a family from the Israelite tribe of Mannaseh travelling to the Americas (right before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians circa 586 B.C.) has any truth to it or not, I couldn't say.

So, what do you think? Certainly Adam doesn't need to have been a caucasian, but, if he wasn't, what do you believe he was? Is it your opinion that Adam looked like the modern Jew or Arab? What reason do you have to believe this? By the way, are there any ancient sources which claim that the 'gods' or angels were/are fair-skinned? (I'm not trying to be argumentive, I just want to figure this out.)

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Sorry to step in here...I just want to say how interesting this post is. I'm definitely going to keep up with this. Hope you don't mind if I jump in every now and then. I've read a little on this topic in other places and it's quite interesting. Undomiel, I do believe you're on the right track here. Thanks for this insight.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I've enjoyed reading this thread as it appears to be an honest efford to disclosing facts (presumptive facts) about the origins of mankind most notably Modern (Thinking Man with functional cerebral cortex /the ability to think / reason..which sounds a bit like free-will).

As none of us lived at the time of creation and not to mention the authors of the texts that you have all refferenced;I preffer to use the phrase "presumptive fact" for its information (second hand at best) that we choose to believe for all of our various reasons. I feel this is important when you attempt to establish ..fact based on what you feel is authoritive...

Early in this thread was the discussion of Elohim and the portent of plurality of G-D however you choose to present his name. What strikes me clear, is that in all of the refferences quoted ...all of you seem to accept that either one G-d or more than one G-d had a conversion ..this by itself implies a plurality at the time of Adam. So I guess the discussion would be who G-d was talking to... From a Christian point of view Elohim has been considered the representation of the Godhead as a triune body but I doubt if a certain event (Adam eating of the forbidden fruit) cause the Triune Godhead to have a conversion with its self. So who or what was present with G-d at the time of Adam's "fall" (that being an enigma of its own).
Would the angels of heaven, the messengers of G-d be the possible "us" refferenced in the passages keeping in mind G-d was talking to someone....
Or is there or was there a peerage at the time of Adams actions that was equalivant to G-d himself.... OR the singularity of Creation of all life as we know it, was viewing an event taking place in a lone part of the universe under the perview of "Gods" appointed as caretakers for the activities taking place on earth.. who had conflicting points of view to include finding the childern of men (women) as desirable. To co-habitate / procreate a celestial enitiy would obviously have to take on a human physical form for the physial act of procreation. This leaves us with more questions than anwsers. As it is accepted theology that the one true creator could not be contained even for an instant in a physical form as we know it...
For all this to work it appears to me that there was a Hyarchary present in the heavens, which is consistent with the records of many ancient civilizations. The beings created by the originator of all life would appear to modern man as immortal Gods. And if these enities were weak enough to seek out physical co-habitation then it seems they would also accept false adoration which rightfully belonged to the creator / originator of all life.

So it seems to me that demi-Gods existed at the time of Adams fau paux.. and that it was not only Adam but these demi-gods (demi = half) who also fell from there first estate...



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The other main topic seems to be about the origin of mankind. To my knowledge there is clear evidence of 4 sub-groups of modern man carved in stone in mountians of Peru (lack the exact spelling) Titananco.

Modern man (meaning the ability to think and reason which requires a functional cerebral cortex is to me another enigma and the possiblities verge on heresy depending on you religious affliations.

For my part homo sapiens and their precursors existed for a long time on earth as a sentient being (natural to earth as part of its creation).
I side with those who believe that modern man was a science project and the product of genetic engineering.. and so the link between the original bi-ped and modern man does not exist....
I beleive it has being recently disclosed that modern man has primate genes, but also reptilian and plant... that certainly sounds like someone was mixing things in a test tube..
If you doubt that possiblity you might want to consider the early Sumerians had knowelege of the existience of genetic coding which became the basis for the science of the Kaballah and the tree of life which incidently resembles an actual tree formation.
All that is left is the recorded knowledge of how to manipulate the genetic structure.. and it is fabled that Kaballahist were able to create Golems (animated rock or stone).
Cheers..



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
You said:

Evolution and Anthropology
I realize that it is extremely unpopular (and practically considered evil) these days to talk about differences between the races or to suggest that we are not all the same. But I wonder if the general prohibition against investigating the idea that each of the three main root races of man - black, Asian, and caucasian - had differenent origins does, in fact, have the primary purpose of preventing humans from discovering the 'otherwordly' origins of certain people? There are men and women on this earth who have more than a passing amount of Reptilian or Annunaki DNA in their genetic make-up, which means they cannot be strictly classified as 'human'. Perhaps the restrictions and taboos in place against examining the genetic differences between humans have been put in place to discourage scientists from discovering the characteristics which would identify a 'human' being as a Reptilian or Nephilim-human hybrid?


My reply:

Okay, who exactly has "more than a passing amount of Reptilian and Annunaki DNA"? And what proof do you offer to substantiate this? I'm not trying to downgrade your well thought out research, rather I'm trying to get you to elaborate on why you think there's evidence of this and where this evidence is? It's too easy to isolate an entire sector of the populace and label them with negative connotations without a shred of evidence so I'm asking you to continue your record of thorough research and provide some honest to goodness proof.

You said:

Well, whether or not Adam was a caucasian, Genesis does seem to say that he was put into the garden of Eden to "keep it". As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word shamar can also be translated as "watch" or "guard", so Adam could be said to have been a warden of sorts. He also apparently had some amount of authority over everything/one else in the garden, as Yahweh permitted him to name to every "beast [chay - life] of the field", etc. (Genesis 2:19-20). Most people assume that all the other beings in the garden were animals, but, if that's the case, why would Yahweh even bother to look for "a help meet for him" amongst them?


My reply:

So you believe Adam was a Watcher? That doesn't sound right to me. Save this topic for another post so we can discuss this. If I'm not mistaken, the Watchers were the Annunaki/Fallen Angels and Adam was not Annunaki/Fallen Angel. I think "Adam" represented the entirety of homo sapians in some verses, and only a singular identity in other verses. He was both ALL men and one man. Reason for this logic is the usage of the word "man" in the plural sense and in the singular sense, which today we would simply translate as "humans" or "human." Also, this is substantiated by the pre-existence of other humans (Cain knew his wife, etc).

In my opinion, Sitchin's theory that the Annunaki bred with Homo Erectus is just darn silly, primarily because if you've seen an illustration of what modern evolutionary science thinks Homo Erectus looks like, you'd see there was nothing particularly attractive about them in a human sense and yet in countless places, in cultures all over the world, there are tales of how the "Gods" came down to earth and impregnated human females because they found them to be beautiful, physically attractive.

I don't recall the particulars off the top of my head, but there's an example in ancient India, in which the "Moon God" came down and impregnated a human lady, and she gave birth to a boy who grew up to be the leader of the nation and the founder of one of the hindu religions or something to that effect. Anyway, these supposed "myths" (I think they are more fact than fiction) are all over the globe. Can't be because the "Gods" thought homo erectus was physically attractive, especially in light of the fact, they are said to look like humans themselves. This, obviously, must be a reference to the "Aliens" people refer to as Nordics. I think the Greys and Reptilians are demons, whereas the Nordics are Fallen Angels - different races themselves. (I'm still on the fence about the existence of Reptilians, although I can see how one would be lead to believe in them as there is more than enough references in ancient literature.)

Sitchin accounts for this by saying the Annunaki didn't seek human females merely for procreation but rather for slave labor. His theory is, the Annunaki needed fairly intelligent, malleable lifeforms to mine the gold of the planet, and homo erectus wasn't quite there yet. So they mixed with them to create a species with higher intelligence - et.al, homo sapians. I just don't see it in the literature. There's no indication any of the human races were used to mine gold for the "Gods" (Annunaki/Fallen Angels) they worshipped. They made buildings, furniture, jewelry, sarcophagi, etc, with gold or gold surfaces, but I see not one instance of where they offered up gold to the "Gods." It was my theory that the prevalent usage of gold was due to its malleability and beauty in the sunlight.


You said:
The Native Americans
According to what I've learned, the Americas were known of and travelled to by ancient peoples and civilizations. The Olmecs (black Africans) have already been mentioned in this thread. We know about the pyramids of Mexico, and I think Nutzo also mentioned the discovery of coc aine in the bodies of Egyptian mummies. I've read "The Histories" by Herodotus. In his book he reports that some in his time believed a river existed that went all the way around the world which they called "the Ocean". He had also heard stories about the Phoenician sailors who circumnavigated the continent of Africa even before his time. Now, the Phoenicians were the best mariners and most skilled navigators of the ancient world. They were so proficient at sailing that, after having discovered the British isles, they were able to evade any ships that tried to follow them there (in order to discover the location of the lucrative tin mines).

Furthermore, Hiram king of Tyre (a Phoenician) had a treaty with King Solomon. Hiram not only helped Solomon to build the famous temple at Jerusalem, his navy also cooperated with Solomon's (see 1 Kings 9:26-28; 10:11, 21-22). Wherever the Phoenician navy sailed, Solomon's navy went with them. In addition to certain black Africans (Olmecs), I believe that the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews were all making sea voyages to the Americas in ancient times. There's even some evidence that the Celts did as well (see thecoracle.tripod.com...). So, the theory is that these peoples in combination with the Pacific Islanders and Asians who migrated to the Americas from the west (in relation to America) all contributed to the origin of the Native American peoples.

But the knowledge of the location of the Americas and how to cross the Atlantic was probably (mostly) lost after the destruction of the Phoenician North African colony of Carthage by the Romans. The influx of Semitic peoples (caucasians?) to the Americas ended for some time, so eventually the Asian strains began to predominate amongst the Native Americans. Whether the story in the Book of Mormon about a family from the Israelite tribe of Mannaseh travelling to the Americas (right before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians circa 586 B.C.) has any truth to it or not, I couldn't say.

So, what do you think? Certainly Adam doesn't need to have been a caucasian, but, if he wasn't, what do you believe he was? Is it your opinion that Adam looked like the modern Jew or Arab? What reason do you have to believe this? By the way, are there any ancient sources which claim that the 'gods' or angels were/are fair-skinned? (I'm not trying to be argumentive, I just want to figure this out.)


So do you think the Native Americans are "caucasian-asiatic"? Seems to me they're african-asiatic. I think the Mormon theory has already been debunked, since genetic research says there's no indication of semetic or caucasian heritage in the people of South America. I'm not sure how I feel about this topic, as I believe there were semetic people in Egypt during the timeframe Sitchin is discussing. He says the egyptian "God" Thoth left Egypt and took his followers with him to South America, thusly the african features of the Olmec statues. Perhaps the amount of semetic and caucasian peoples with Thoth was so small, there weren't enough to make a huge genetic impact on the continent. Rather the Native Americans of South and North America are primarily of African and Asiatic orgin with an extremely small amount being caucasian and/or semetic. If the story is true, Thoth (who would fit the definition of an Annunaki) wouldn't necessarily require an ocean-going vessel to move his people from Africa to South America, if'n you know what I mean.


[edit on 19-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Missed this part:

You said:
So, what do you think? Certainly Adam doesn't need to have been a caucasian, but, if he wasn't, what do you believe he was? Is it your opinion that Adam looked like the modern Jew or Arab? What reason do you have to believe this? By the way, are there any ancient sources which claim that the 'gods' or angels were/are fair-skinned? (I'm not trying to be argumentive, I just want to figure this out.)


Well lemme see. We were establishing who the Annunaki were - either gods, Aliens or Fallen Angels. Pretty much everyone, on both sides of the fence, believe that Quetzacoatl was an extra-terrestrial of some sort - being either an Alien, a god, or a Fallen Angel. I think the definitions are one in the same! I believe Fallen Angels are Aliens and Aliens are Fallen Angels and neither are "God" but what scripture refers to as "the Sons of God". When people meet "extra-terrestrials" that are not Fallen Angels, their words and motives have proven them. In other words, God does not require any further "mating" with the human species than the Holy Spirit's impregnation of Mary. That was His final act regarding human DNA. And prophecy states that the only time we will see any other being from God descending to the earth, it will be Jesus Himself. We may encounter Angels from God, but they will not be appearing in showers of gold to seduce the women or in negligees and horns to seduce the men. If you encounter extra terrestrials that want to tinker with your DNA, have sex with you, or who try to imply they are superior beings to humans, you might want to consider your current "Spiritual" state and get some major prayer time in, because scripture says that the Fallen Angels were Angels who had been cast down to the earth, isolated to the physical realm - who knew their time was limited, and who have been working around the clock to fudge up the works.

Anyway, Quetzacoatl was fair-haired. Sitchin says he is Thoth. I think whoever he was, he was Annunaki, a Fallen Angel of "Nordic" appearance. I think this is pretty much consistent. I'll look up some more examples for later discussion.

As far as Adam's race is concerned, I'm of the opinion that he was probably black. But before we go too indepth on this, allow me to say that I think there were 2 creations even before the Annunaki arrived. 2 races of Adam (or man). The first race of Adam was probably black. The second was probably blacks and asians - very close in resemblence to the Native Americans when they interbred. Then some of them interbred with the "caucasian" Annunaki, and the caucasian and semetic races arose. Have you ever seen a depiction of a Sumerian? Very much like Native Americans. Here's a picture of one:




[edit on 19-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Addendum: For the record, I'm caucasian (but who knows what else is in my blood line!), so I'm not saying these things to implicate semetic people, nor do I hate my own caucasian race. I'm of the firm belief that Jesus came to provide everyone the same opportunities, regardless of race. What the "Sons of God" Fallen Angels had screwed up by tampering with the human genome, Jesus offered a permanent "spiritual" fixative for. Race mixing is, in my opinion, no longer a "Sin", as it was never really a "Sin" to have a foreign spouse provided that spouse was not nephilim, but rather it was a sin to worship that spouse's false god. It was considered a bad idea to marry out of your religion, which usually went hand in hand with race at the time. Also, the idea of avoiding marriage with nephilim was the genetic problem - Jesus had to be fully human. I believe that "genetic problem" and the resultant race limitation" was ended with the resurrection of Christ and now even those who you might refer to as descendents of nephilim have a chance at salvation, as they are by no means responsible for the behavior of their ancestors, can only account for themselves, and therefore may approach the Mercy Seat in search of salvation with everyone else on the planet.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join