From Egypt to Israel in symbols

reply to post by zardust


I uploaded it below:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by zardust


have you found any correlation between the cherubim and seraphim, etymologically, other than the fact they are both descriptive titles given to angelic races? why do you think the vatican chose to have little baby cherubs, like cupids,
for the cherubim artforms, vs. the ways these beings were depicted in early art forms as a sort of sphinx looking creature with
wings who flanked the pharaoh's throne or chariot or even the ark of the covenant?

as regards the "them" reference, it instead says adam. in other words, it says elohim created males and females in the image of adam, also known as the image of elohim. in effect, it's the same thing. he, singular, created males and females in the image of elohim plural, and called (them) adam. not it-adam or he-adam or she-adam, but multiple adam of both sexes, created from multiple elohim. and that's because adam is really a plural word, as was atum and elohim and alulim. the only time any of those words are used in the singular sense is when they apply to the creator as the head of life creation team - in effect, in the royal "we" sense. otherwise, the created were named after their creator templates (the elohim plural).

it's people assuming that the first adam were 1) procreators and 2) human, that screws up the text. it also obfuscates that there was a society of living beings who had not only developed a means of multiplying their numbers that didn't involve sexual reproduction, but also that these advanced beings were on the earth before humans.

undo
as regards the "them" reference, it instead says adam. in other words, it says elohim created males and females in the image of adam, also known as the image of elohim. in effect, it's the same thing. he, singular, created males and females in the image of elohim plural, and called (them) adam. not it-adam or he-adam or she-adam, but multiple adam of both sexes, created from multiple elohim. and that's because adam is really a plural word, as was atum and elohim and alulim. the only time any of those words are used in the singular sense is when they apply to the creator as the head of life creation team - in effect, in the royal "we" sense. otherwise, the created were named after their creator templates (the elohim plural).

it's people assuming that the first adam were 1) procreators and 2) human, that screws up the text. it also obfuscates that there was a society of living beings who had not only developed a means of multiplying their numbers that didn't involve sexual reproduction, but also that these advanced beings were on the earth before humans.

edit on 25-3-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

This is a word for word "translation", I use quotes because its not attempting to put it into English besides translating the Hebrew word to its direct English Equivalent. But even then choosing which word is the correct word is tricky, because there isn't a direct equivalency between Hebrew and English. The forms of thought are quite different. The Hebrew mindset is one of concrete thought. It is active and visual, as opposed to Greek/Western thought which is abstract. We see this change in thought as you transition from hieroglyphs to letters that just mean sounds, as opposed to the Hebrew where each letter had a meaning, and a number.

Interlinear Hebrew Translation
Notice the little double arrows, those are Ath, or Aleph-Tau/Alpha-Omega/Christ/New man. The word goes untranslated for most of the Bible, except they use it as "them" in the creation of Adam male and female (so this version translates it where others don't, like blb.org). Just humor me, in reading this, When you see those arrows think, Man of Heaven/Logos/Christ even if the translators translate it. (probably easier to go to the link, so you can see the Hebrew words above too)

1 in·beginning he-created Elohim »the·heavens and·» the·earth
and·the·earth she-became chaos and·vacancy and·darkness over surfaces-of abyss
and·spirit-of Elohim vibrating over surfaces-of the·waters
and·he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become light and·he-is-becoming light
and·he-is- seeing Elohim » the·light that good and·he-is-separating Elohim between
the·light and·between the·darkness
and·he-is-calling Elohim to·the·light day and·to·the·darkness he-calls night
and·he-is-becoming evening and·he-is-becoming morning day one


and·he-is-saying Elohim we-shall-make human in·image-of·us as·likeness-of·us
and·they-shall-sway in·fish-of the·sea and·in·flyer-of the·heavens and·in·the·beast
and·in·all-of the·earth and·in·every-of the·moving-animal the·one-moving on the·land
and·he-is-creating Elohim » the·human in·image-of·him in·image-of Elohim he-created
»·him male and·female he-created »·them

AS for cherubim and seraphim I don't think there is any etymology links. The word cherubim is KRB KeRouB, Seraphim is SRP, SeRaPh. KRB means to plow in Aramaic, and in Ezekiels vision, the 4 faces of the cherubim were described multiple times. One time the face of the Calf, was replaced with the face of the Cherub, so we might infer that Cherub=Calf. SRP refers to the fiery serpents in the Wilderness, which is where Seraphim get their root word from. Moses Raised the bronze serpent(bronze is judgement, and notice Dan in the Qodesh Stele is the serpent, and Dan means judge) in the wilderness. Besides that and the Isaiah Throne Room vision, there is no other mention of them.

How cherubs became babies is beyond me. I think I read something on it once but I have no clue. Yes cherubs are found throughout all cultures going waaaay back. IMO that is because THE STORY is one, and the cherub are a major player in it. BTW I don't think they are beings at all, I know big shock right They are the symbolic representation of the veil or covering of flesh.

reply to post by zardust


Psalm 18:10 KJV

“And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly : yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.”

A flying machine comes to mind.....

reply to post by zardust


i don't think the adam in chapter 1 are humans. study this for a bit.

undo
reply to post by zardust

 

i don't think the adam in chapter 1 are humans. study this for a bit.

A progression of styling
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yt53331ac7.jpg[/atsimg]

Chicago Oriental Institute

“the ideology and imagery of political power were being actively developed” (Wilkinson 2003, p. 79). Many of the decorated palettes, mace-heads, knife- handles, and other monuments assuredly “focus on foreign relations, aggression, and the assertion of order” (Baines 1999). Indeed, below its pragmatic surface, the territorial expansion of the Naqada cul- ture might have had deeper ideological and religious overtones, namely the subjugation of enemies (read: chaos) of cosmological order by the victorious divine ruler and his followers. Patricia Perry suggests an ad- ditional early and very successful amalgamation of ideological and political power: “It is likely that the Naqada IC–IIB Hierakonpolis elite employed ideologi- cal power [control over systems of meaning and be- lief, norm and ritual practices] as the principal means of political centralisation .... The Hierakonpolis cer- emonial centre (HK29A) ‘materialised’ the role of the elite as intermediaries in an emerging ideological system” (Perry in press)

This ties in nicely with what I've been saying about the elite controlling/manipulating symbols for their benefit.

Very interesting, the guy who did most of the excavations William M Flinders Petrie, was excavating on the theory that the rulers of Egypt came from outside, as colonists. Till his death he still held to his theory (even though the 'evidence' says otherwise).

There's always 3 sides to every story when you are talking about history, and especially prehistory, and when we want to get to the truth of the matter. Again, you may be right, this person might be towing the company line of accepted history. I don't know.

reply to post by zardust


some of them have no feet and they are the offspring of the tall guy all the way to the right. some have elongated skulls. the second taller figure from the right, is holding his arms in what i have come to think of as the eye of ra symbol, with the head acting as the pupil of the eye. of course, i think the eye of ra is a gate, but that's a different subject.

anyway, the eye of ra arm position is a sign to the viewer that they are from the eye of ra--the gate. i suppose that means they are identifying themselves as divinities who have sired the various races of smaller offspring they are attached to. study it. it's not just an artform, it's loaded with information. there are more too. that's just one example.

it's the same thing as this, with the exception that the four divinities are turned into one depicted as horus and the elohim copies are now humans.

the four races of mankind from a structure dedicated by seti I. i forget if its the tomb in valley of the kings or the temple at abydos


and they are both the same thing as verse 27 of genesis 1, where the creator god, creates copies of the elohim plural


then later, they are modified to procreate which is the fall narrative of the garden.
people just have been taught the wrong thing about genesis 1:27.
it isn't 1 god creating a hermaprhodite
it isn't a bunch of gods creating a bunch of humans
it isn't 1 god creating humans
it's 1 god creating copies of the elohim plural (4 races)
then later, that 1 god, gives the copied elohim, procreation.
but the guy who owns the planet didn't like that idea, and demanded the divine part be removed (the divine part being total full body regeneration -- the tree of life. some part of our dna designed to continously repair our dna, was nerfed, the way was blocked, the serpent (dna) of regeneration, lost its legs (it no longer unzipped in order to replicate)

as far as the lineage of pharaohs, it depends on whether you're talking before or after the black sea flood, or before or after the ice age. these are 2 major markers that show up as being one and the same event in the flood narrative, but are not the same thing. obviously.

for example, in the noah passages it says things like, the whole world and all the animals, and then it will say 7 clean animals in pairs (14), 2 unclean animals in pairs (4) and 7 fowls in pairs (14). that's a grand total of 32 animals, a far cry from all the animals, but if you realize it's talking about 2 different cataclysms, one that was global and wiped out the dinosaurs, and one that wasn't global but negatively impacted civilizations built by water, then you are closer to what actually happened. don't get me wrong--i'm not saying the story isn't true, i'm saying it's 2 stories, both about life ending events, but one is much worse than the other.

anyway, about 200 years after the black sea flood, enmerkar (see enmerkar and the lord of arrata), also known as the biblical nimrod, and the egyptian narmer, travelled to abydos following the events at babel and re-started the pharaonic dynasty in upper egypt. nimrod was a descendant of noah. 200 years earlier, ham, who was also a descendant of noah, had already re-started the egyptian civ in lower egypt. however, ham was already from that area i do believe and was just going back there after the black sea flood. either way, descendants of noah, from both egypt (the khemites (ham)) and mesopotamia (nimrod), are responsible for the pharaonic lineage after the black sea flood.

reply to post by undo


The 3rd picture on the right is of the Narmer Palette, which is Narmer striking down his enemies, with a mace. Notice his elongated head, Oh wait thats a hat. Now look at the other two, there is a very clear transition from Naqada I which is very unrefined, like a child scribbling. The next is a bit more refined, and finally the clear picture of Narmer.

If you could provide more info regarding that last picture with all the races on there. I don't know much about it, and when I look at it, I don't see aliens making copies, but I'll read up on it.

reply to post by zardust


the four races of mankind photo is from seti I's temple at abydos or tomb in the valley of the kings. it doesn't say anything about aliens. what i said was, the abydos vase image from naqada period, is depicting the same 4 races as seti I's, but before they had transistioned into homo sapiens from the addition of mammalian procreation instead of copying/cloning.

the guys in the multicolored kilts with dangly beads are israelites.
the red skinned guys in white kilts are egyptians
the black skinned guys are probably nubians or ethiopians
and the guys with the long dresses with the feathers on their heads, are the yellow skinned persians / far eastern.

here's a pair underwater. that's seaweed in the picture. in the distance is an underwater pyramid

undo
here's a pair underwater. that's seaweed in the picture. in the distance is an underwater pyramid

edit on 27-3-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

Is that underwater pyramid your interpretation or egyptologists (not that they are correct automatically).

Excuse the selfish post to bookmark. Seems very interesting and I'll have a read through shortly.

reply to post by zardust


I wonder the same thing. It looks an aweful lot like a ladder.

Did the AE's not view space as being like an ocean?

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

I wonder the same thing. It looks an aweful lot like a ladder.

Did the AE's not view space as being like an ocean?

Not seaweed, but trees of life showing maternal generations. V is the ancient symbol for 'mother'. The "underwater pyramid" shows paternal generations, like A

reply to post by zardust


Love this post, thanks for it. Great job friend

One Love,

Lucinda

some of the responses here are sillier than mine are. lol
how do we know it's an underwater pyramid? well for one, the surface of the water is depicted over their heads.
secondly, that is definitely seaweed. thirdly, they have fish tails instead of legs, just like the offspring of the tall guy
all the way to the right in the image of the four elohim templates (ya know, the ones with no feet?)
fourthly, what else looks like a ladder and triangular? surely they didn't go from being awful at art, to depicting
perspective view on a ladder.

sheesh guys, try harder than that lol

Utnapisjtim

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

I wonder the same thing. It looks an aweful lot like a ladder.

Did the AE's not view space as being like an ocean?

Not seaweed, but trees of life showing maternal generations. V is the ancient symbol for 'mother'. The "underwater pyramid" shows paternal generations, like A

edit on 27-3-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Paternal

but of who? generations of who? which is the maternal figure in the image? are you saying the seaweed represents dna?