Genesis 1

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

I feel we should go back to understanding that Nature is our Mother.

i feel that doing so is ignoring wide swaths of our history

undo

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

I feel we should go back to understanding that Nature is our Mother.

i feel that doing so is ignoring wide swaths of our history

You mean the part that denies women a place in nature?

What about Lilith who simply wanted equal time???

Kashai

undo

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

I feel we should go back to understanding that Nature is our Mother.

i feel that doing so is ignoring wide swaths of our history

You mean the part that denies women a place in nature?

no i mean that part that might prove a woman's place is just as relevant as a man's, that women were also direct inheritors of the elohim image, and that the idea we were at fault for the fall narrative is wrong, and that someone saddled us with the concept of sin in that regard, because they wanted us to follow enlil, the moon god, the guy that hated human beings. rather i think the sin part came in later, as it was evident that procreation lead to other less than glamorous behaviors, such as murder, jealousy, and so on, as functional outcroppings of survival of the fittest.

in essence, we didn't do the deed, we had the deed done to us as a result of a problem on the planet -- et.al work shortages, but were lead to believe we had a choice in the matter and so the thing was blamed on us and the punishment inflicted on us. truth is, there could've been any number of alternate remedies, but they were not chosen because the guy in charge, was racist against our species.

reply to post by undo


I am a man and as a man I never blame another person for my own actions. In that sense Adam was not a man, in relation to modern day thinking? A man does not blame women for anything he does, otherwise he is not a man.

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

I am a man and as a man I never blame another person for my own actions. In that sense Adam was not a man, in relation to modern day thinking? A man does not blame women for anything he does, otherwise he is not a man.

when i say "we" i mean the entire human race.

undo
reply to post by Fromabove

 

They pollute the Bible with other teachings from earthly deities and religions. In essence, they do not want God at all in their lives, and they do not want the children of God on the earth with them.

read the sumerian texts. they do not pollute the scripture. they verify it.
the story entitled, ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARRATA, is about the Tower of Babel. Enmerkar was Nimrod.
Nimrod was a title, not his actual name. Here's an excerpt from a book called THE GIZA DISCOVERY

"In Hebrew the four letters that make up the name Nimrod roughly translate to n-m-r-d. In Sumerian the name Enmer translates to n-m-r, while the suffix -kar simply means "hunter." In the Bible he is "Nimrod the Hunter" and in Sumerian myth he is "Enmer the Hunter."

read THE GIZA DISCOVERY
redmoonrising.com...

the egyptologist (David Rohl) goes on to stipulate that Nimrod was also Narmer, the founder of the egyptian pharaonic dynasty and that his mother was egyptian. This is also true for Nimrod. did you know Nimrod became a mighty one after he was already born? did you know a mighty one was biblical parlance for nephilim and in some cases, for elohim?

read EPIC OF GILGAMESH tablet XI. it's about the flood.
www.ancienttexts.org...

bible scholars all learn ancient texts in addition to the bible. they are not without value.

The Sumerian texts come from details as told by Nimrod and his descendents. Nimrod (Hammurabi) and his line had a falling out with Noah and the other descendents Japeth and Shem. They twisted the meanings of what was told to allow for other deities such as the Anu or Annunaki, who were the fallen angels who came to interbreed with humans. Truth further erodes from that time until most of the world didn't have a clue who God was. After the great flood, one of the children of Ham, or grandson came across tablets of stone with "secret knowledge" written on them from before the flood.. He hid them and studied them fearing Noah would hear of it. It told of the time before the flood and all the knowledge that the Watchers had taught. This knowledge was accepted and used by the people who would be the "Sumerians". A civilization that even history says exploded into a leap of advancement not known before with cites, language, the arts, metallurgy, astrology, irrigation, civil laws, government, armies, and much more. They were the super power of that time.

As such, I will use what I read from the Bible and only a few prior texts from the prophets of old who were Godly and worshiped only God alone.

But the children of this world love to add to the word of God, and to muddy it up with many writings until again it loses it's truth and meaning as before. They don't want God, they want a deity without moral laws and without supremacy, for they will never willingly serve God nor bow before Him to honor Him.

The account as it was given by Moses from God is what we would call the updated version and explains what was once known but was twisted, contorted, and forgotten.

On one last thing about Nimrod. "He became a mighty one before the Lord." The actual translation is that he became a "Gabore" before the Lord, or giant, or Nephilim. He was intentionally genetically changed, modified. He worshipped a god called Anu. His pillar of exploits still exists today for all to read.

undo

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

I am a man and as a man I never blame another person for my own actions. In that sense Adam was not a man, in relation to modern day thinking? A man does not blame women for anything he does, otherwise he is not a man.

when i say "we" i mean the entire human race.

I agree it is about all of us making a difference.

reply to post by Fromabove


just being a mighty one didn't automatically make the character evil. for example,

2Samuel 23:8

These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

--

the guy single handedly killed 800 of david's enemies all at once. he was a gibbor, a nephil. now i'm not saying nimrod was the apple of enlil's eye, that much is evident from enlil's commentary, that was almost always against any real improvement for humans on the planet. but nimrod apparently had gained favor with inana, enki and anu, and considering anu was the heavenly father god and is traced etymologically to Amen, i think anu sounds like the hidden god of the hebrews. some scholars think the hidden god was marduk (et. al, nimrod) after his death, but that's an entirely different story. the father god anu, predates nimrod in written texts by about 1000 years. so i get the impression that enlil didn't like the idea that a human had been changed genetically (remember enlil was an environmentalist ).

and here's the clincher: nephilim (mighty ones) are also called elohim at some places in the text of the bible. a mighty one is a nephil. so what does that mean? i think it means that nimrod was given back the pre-human elohim body, but with the tree of life, still blocked.

reply to post by Fromabove


"But the children of this world love to add to the word of God."

So let us bring up the issue of Revelations...

Who is Asclepius and why would the Romans kill a man known to raise the dead?

Perhaps the issue on Earth as to why Jesus Christ was sacrificed is because he was not Greek or Roman.

Gods wrath is then against who???

Children believe in absolutes.

Kashai


What about Lilith who simply wanted equal time???

she was a pre-human female adam elohim.

Kashai
I feel we should go back to understanding that Nature is our Mother.

"Nature" would just as soon kill us as have us live. In fact, it does kill us. Death is encoded in our genetics so our offspring can continue on.

Mother Nature is a lot like Carrie's mom.

i really don't like saying "adam elohim" when referring to a single individual, because they are both plural words. might be better to explain what an adam elohim is in the first place.

an adam didn't start off as a human. the translators of the bible assumed it, but they were wrong. the first time man is mentioned in the text, it's actually adam in the original hebrew, not man. and furthermore, the text says the subsequent adam males and females, are copies of elohim. not copies of humans. so they are elohim copies, not humans.

i think how this confusion came about was because moses had learned the history of the creation from both the hebrew and hebrew-egyptian perspective. remember ham was a son of noah who went on to inhabit egypt following the black sea flood. he most likely took the sumerian story of creation with him and by the time of moses, it had taken on its own cultural spellings and variations. moses' mother, who was his nanny in pharaoh ahmose' house, most likely told him the sumerian creation story also, but without the egyptian language variants and cultural twists.

so here he was with 2 creation stories that sound suspiciously similar, but still different enough that he doesn't know what to do. i'm theorizing here, but the first name on the sumerian kings list is ALULIM, which i think was an early form of ELOHIM. now in the egyptian creation account, ATUM created the world. moses was between a rock and a hard place. was ham's culturally modified version correct, or his mother's version. it was here he prayed and asked for divine guidance on how to write it down.

since both accounts had many similarities, it seems he arrived at the least confusing approach. adam and atum were originally the same word. however, in sumer, they were alulim (et.al, elohim). this meant the elohim copies had been named after their creator(s). in other words, the adam copies had been named after the adam, or the atum copies had been named after the atum. it's my theory that moses decided to differentiate them by referring to the copies as adam, and to the creator(s) as elohim. problem solved.

reply to post by Blue Shift


A tendency on our part to believe nature should treat us better.

It is not just about us.

Kashai
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

A tendency on our part to believe nature should treat us better.

It is not just about us.

this is assuming that the gods were literal aspects of nature. that is not the impression i get when i read the old texts. rather, that's an outcropping of the enuma elish, an oddly inaccurate account of earlier events that resulted in babylonian astrology.. in effect, you're a victim of the lack of evidence to the contrary for some 4500 years.

reply to post by undo


"since both accounts had many similarities, it seems he arrived at the least confusing approach. adam and atum were originally the same word. however, in sumer, they were alulim (et.al, elohim). this meant the elohim copies had been named after their creator(s). in other words,the adam had been named after the adam, or the atum had been named after the atum. it's my theory that moses decided to differentiate them by referring to the copies as adam, and to the creator(s) as elohim. problem solved."


Consciousness once created has access to all and so becomes a part of the past, prior to its creation.

reply to post by Kashai

First all, OP, just want to kindly say that this fruit-eating story took place in Genesis 3, not 1... 'cause I just looked it up to verify something I thought I remembered.

The snake was possessed by Lucifer (in the story)

It says it was a 'crafty serpent' and nothing about being possessed. I had never heard your take on it before, so if you have a version that says it, please share. Below are a few different versions, and I can't find any mention of possession in these...

Genesis 3
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Fall

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

Genesis 3
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Temptation and Fall of Man

3 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

Genesis 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Source

Kashai
reply to post by undo

 

"since both accounts had many similarities, it seems he arrived at the least confusing approach. adam and atum were originally the same word. however, in sumer, they were alulim (et.al, elohim). this meant the elohim copies had been named after their creator(s). in other words,the adam had been named after the adam, or the atum had been named after the atum. it's my theory that moses decided to differentiate them by referring to the copies as adam, and to the creator(s) as elohim. problem solved."


Consciousness once created has access to all and so becomes a part of the past, prior to its creation.

i understand what you are talking about, but that aspect of the story is older than the book of genesis. what we are talking about RIGHT NOW, is the advent of homo sapiens. not the advent of conscious thought.

back to Genesis 1: verse 2. yep, the first chapter of the entire bible, second verse.

it doesn't say the earth WAS void and without form. it says the earth BECAME a void wasteland.

so the first verse is about the formation of the universe.
now skip ahead to the ice age, which is what verse 2 is talking about.
the spirit of god moves over the FACE of deep water. it melts down to reveal
dry land that was already there. in effect, we don't know diddly squat about
what happened before the ice age, other than what scientists are
allowed to tell us, because genesis is not about what happened before that
time frame, other than the creation of the universe, the cataclsym of the ice
age, and the elohim copies who were created to refill the earth with life and
civilization, who were non-human predecessors of the human race.

reply to post by new_here

The Serpent Was Not the Devil

The serpent was not the devil, but he was in league with the devil for his own reasons. The devil had assumed his personality and voice. God acknowledged that union and closeness when he addressed the devil through the serpent and said to Satan while speaking to the serpent, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between your seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Two facts are evidenced by the final result of the serpent's participation. First, the serpent received his own judgment, condemnation, and sentence showing that he was a distinct personality and creature from the devil. And then, the serpent himself was tricked by the devil, used by him, destroyed by that unholy alliance, and cast aside when he was no longer needed or useful. It was going to be all so nice, so grand, and so wonderful, but it did not work out in the end. He never got what he was promised. He did not get the control of the Garden; he did not get the praise and admiration of the creatures of the Garden; and he did not get the girl. What he got instead was a demotion to the lowest, most humiliating and most despised station in life. He got the hatred of humanity, and a heel on the head from the Seed of the Woman, the woman whom he compromised.

And so it has ever been with cheaters, thieves, rebels, fools, liars, suckers, and unbelievers who go that same garish way, following the spangled path they think is leading to a pot of gold; but which is actually the reflection of the setting sun upon the slimy trail left by the slithering serpent that leads downward to the pit.

Source

This is about animism in relation to the idea that certain animal spirits were evil.

reply to post by Kashai


well let's observe the attributes of satan.
satan was the accuser of humans.
his law accused humans constantly, because, not only
did it outline how humans were incapable of keeping
simple laws like don't murder or be jealous, but also
because it went that further step of demanding
that the human not even think about it in the first
place.

conversely, he didn't hold himself to the same
laws, et al, he did all the things he accused humans
of, and in massive amounts. while jesus was here
he taught by his own actions. and described those
who thought it was okay to do whatever they wanted
but kept a boot heel on the necks of their flocks,
as members of the synagogue of satan. this is a very old
fight between enlil and enki. very old indeed.