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.
the big question is really, why did enlil not ask for the procreative dna to be removed instead of removing the regenerative dna. i think the answer is obvious: procreating adam (characterized by the arrival of eve, the first mother) meant a hands free influx of new workers, so the anunnaki would not have provide a constant clone supply. the clones would clone themselves via procreation and die off after so many years
Originally posted by undo
knowing good and evil = having sex. to know, was to have intimate relations with ("adam knew his wife and she begat"). so the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the same as dna related to procreation, an ability the adam race did not have before the fall of man scenario.
suddenly, eve noticed adam was sexy and adam noticed eve was sexy. the text just says, naked, but the implication is that before then, they didn't notice (couldn't see) each other's nakedness because it wasn't important. they had no reason to be shy about it before that, et.al, they weren't sexual.
the entire fall narrative is about an environmentalist who didn't want his planet to be over run by sexual, procreating humans, so he took it to court and won his case because this was his planet.
and who tried to give the planet to jesus in exchange for his fealty? had to be enlil, the guy who owned the place. methinks he lost it to enki though, about 2000 years ago, he just hasn't claimed full ownership of it yet. this is what the text calls, the grace period.
edit on 11-6-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mizzijr
Hmm I'm actually reading an interesting book called, "A History of God" Which pretty much talks about well... The history of God and a little bit on how the Bible was constructed. Funny, I see a lot of the research from the book done in the OP of this thread.
Let me tell you... From what I'm reading in the book... I can't repeat it all word for word, but Yahweh appears to be The Roman God of War, Aries from the Patheons
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Mizzijr
Hmm I'm actually reading an interesting book called, "A History of God" Which pretty much talks about well... The history of God and a little bit on how the Bible was constructed. Funny, I see a lot of the research from the book done in the OP of this thread.
Let me tell you... From what I'm reading in the book... I can't repeat it all word for word, but Yahweh appears to be The Roman God of War, Aries from the Patheons
Might want to fact check that. Here's a hint, Yahweh is thousands of years older than Ares.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by undo
No, that's like saying because we use the word god for Zeus and god is in the bible that Zeus is in the bible.edit on 11-6-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by undo
No, you showed me (if I believe you which I won't debate because I don't have to) that the Jewish word for god is derived from enlil. Elohim is not the name of God, elohim is the same as us saying god. When a Christian says god they mean Yahweh, when a Muslim says it they mean Allah. Someone else can say god and mean Ra. That is not evidence Yahweh, Allah, and Ra are the same being. Your evidence, if I suppose it's accurate, is only the etymology of the Jewish word for God and has absolutely nothing to do with Yahweh being Enlil.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by undo
Enlil is a name. Yahweh is a name. Elohim just means god, not a name. If Enlil is Yahweh there should be a link between Enlil and Yahweh.
Showing a link that a Enlil eventually became a generic term el used for any god does not in any way show a relation between Enlil and Yahweh any more than there's a relation between Zeus and Yahwen because both use the generic term god.