Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 3,064 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,287,838
Pageviews Today: 3,114,726Threads Today: 701Posts Today: 13,684
06:51 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

More Questions about aliens.......

 
King of Cups

User ID: 1190
United States
07/27/2005 12:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
This is a very long article but worth reading...

www.lloydpye.com

THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT

by Lloyd Pye

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

Now another grand old “certainty” hovers over history’s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few pages (or many pages) that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every “expert” in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick—which should always be the case but frequently isn’t—Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving toward extinction.

Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all opponents with that brush because so much of Creationist dogma is absurd. Creationists mulishly exclude themselves from serious consideration by refusing to give up fatally flawed parts of their argument, such as the literal interpretation of “six days of creation.” Of course, some have tried to take a more reasonable stance, but those few can’t be heard over the ranting of the many who refuse.

Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called “Intelligent Design,” which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its side. The ID’ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly complex, it could never have simply “come into being,” as Darwinists insist.

Actually, the “life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules” dogma is every bit as absurd as the “everything was created in six days” dogma, which the ID’ers understand and exploit. But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of a God or “by means of outside intervention,” which makes clear how they’re betting. “Outside intervention” is a transparent euphemism for (with apologies to J.K. Rowling) You-Know-What, which to Darwinists, Creationists, and ID’ers alike is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be shown that You-Know-What has the widest array of facts on its side and, in the end, has the best chance of being proved correct.

Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist that somehow, someway, a form of evolution is at the heart of all life forms and processes on Earth. By “evolution” they mean the entire panoply of possible interpretations that might explain how, over vast stretches of time, simple organisms can and do transform themselves into more complex organisms. That broad definition gives science as a whole a great deal of room to bob and weave its way toward the truth about evolution, which is ostensibly its goal. However, among individual scientists that same broadness of coverage means nobody has a “lock” on the truth, which opens them up to a withering array of internecine squabbles.

In Darwin’s case, those squabbles were initially muted. Rightly or wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose than merely challenging the way science thought about life’s processes. It provided something every scientist desperately needed: a strong counter to the intellectual nonsense pouring from pulpits in every church, synagogue, and mosque in the world. Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to openly challenge evolution. Dogma is dogma in any generation.

Darwin’s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for life’s stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough verifiable trees. Even so, once the overarching concept was crystallized as “natural selection,” the term “survival of the fittest” was coined to explain it to laymen. When the majority of the public became convinced that evolution was a legitimate alternative to Creationism, the scientific gloves came off. Infighting became widespread regarding the trees that made up Darwin’s forest.

Over time, scientists parsed Darwin’s original forest into more different trees than he could ever have imagined. That parsing has been wide and deep, and it has taken down countless trees at the hands of scientists themselves. But despite such thinning, the forest remains upright and intact. Somehow, someway, there is a completely natural force at work governing all aspects of the flow and change of life on Earth. That is the scientific mantra, which is chanted religiously to counter every Creationist—and now Intelligent Design—challenge to one or more of the rotten trees that frequently become obvious.

Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of “transitional species” in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform into other, “higher” species. So right out of the chute the theory of evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species apparent in the fossil record.

Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin’s theory, Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists to periodically put forth a series of candidates to try to take the heat off. Unfortunately for them, in every case those “missing links” have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in “Icons Of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.

The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing, but many more are well accounted for. Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled missing link could be found beneath the next overturned rock. Sooner or later, they believe, one of their members will uncover it, so they all work in harmonious concert toward that common goal. Individually, though, it’s every man or woman for themselves.


* * * * *


Plants and animals evolve, eh? All right, how do they evolve?

By gradual but constant changes influenced by adaptive pressures in their environment that cause physical modifications to persist if they are advantageous.

Can you specify the kind of gradual change you’re referring to?

In any population of plants or animals, over time random genetic mutations will occur. Most will be detrimental, some will have a neutral effect, and some will confer a selective advantage, however small or seemingly inconsequential it might appear.

Really? But wouldn’t the overall population have a gene pool deep enough to absorb and dilute even a large change? Wouldn’t a small change rapidly disappear?

Well, yes, it probably would. But not in an isolated segment of the overall population. An isolated group would have a much shallower gene pool, so positive mutations would stand a much better chance of establishing a permanent place in it.

Really? What if that positive mutation gets established in the isolated group, then somehow the isolated group gets back together with the main population? Poof! The mutation will be absorbed and disappear.

Well, maybe. So let’s make sure the isolated population can’t get back with the main group until crossbreeding is no longer possible.

How would you do that?

Put a mountain range between them, something impossible to cross.

If it’s impossible to cross, how did the isolated group get there in the first place?

If you’re asking me just how isolated is isolated, let me ask you one: What kind of mutations were you talking about being absorbed?

Small, absolutely random changes in base pairs at the gene level.

Really? Why not at the chromosome level? Wouldn’t change at the base pair level be entirely too small to create any significant change? Wouldn’t a mutation almost have to be at the chromosome level to be noticeable?

Who says? Change at that level would probably be too much, something the organism couldn’t tolerate.

Maybe we’re putting too much emphasis on mutations.

Right! What about environmental pressures? What if a species suddenly found itself having to survive in a significantly changed environment?

One where its members must adapt to the new circumstances or die out?

Exactly! How would they adapt? Could they just will themselves to grow thicker fur or stronger muscles or larger size?

That sounds like mutations have to play a part.

Mutations, eh? All right, how do they play a part?


* * * * *


This game of intellectual thrust and parry goes on constantly at levels of minutia that boggle an average mind. Traditional Darwinists are one-upped by neo-Darwinists at every turn. Quantum evolutionists refashion the work of those who support the theory of peripheral isolates. Mathematicians model mutation rates and selective forces, which biologists do not trust. Geneticists have little use for paleontologists, who return the favor in spades (pun intended). Cytogenetics labors to find a niche alongside genetics proper. Population geneticists utilize mathematical models that challenge paleontologists and systematists. Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists struggle to make room for their ideas. All perform a cerebral dance of elegant form and exquisite symmetry.

Their dance is, ironically, evolution writ large throughout science as a process. New bits of data are put forth to a peer group. The new data are discussed, written about, criticized, written about again, criticized some more. This is gradualism at work, shaping, reshaping, and reshaping again if necessary, until the new data can comfortably fit into the current paradigm in any field, whatever it is. This is necessary to make it conform as closely as possible to every concerned scientist’s current way of thinking. To do it any other way is to invite prompt rejection under a fusillade of withering criticism.

This system of excruciating “peer review” is how independent thinkers among scientists have always been kept in line. Darwin was an outsider until he barged into the club by sheer, overpowering brilliance. Patent clerk Einstein did the same. On the other hand, Alfred Wegener was the German meteorologist who figured out plate tectonics in 1915. Because he dared to bruise the egos of “authorities” outside his own field, he saw his brilliant discovery buried under spiteful criticism that held it down for 50 years. Every scientist in the game knows how it is played…and very few dare to challenge its rules.

The restrictions on scientists are severe, but for a very good reason. They work at the leading edges of knowledge, from where the view can be anything from confusing to downright terrifying. Among those who study the processes of life on Earth, they must cope with the knowledge that a surprising number of species have no business being here. In some cases they can’t even be here. Yet they are, for better or worse, and those worst-case examples must be hidden or at least obscured from the general public. But no matter how often facts are twisted, data are concealed, or reality is denied, the truth is out there.

There are two basic forms of plants and animals: wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.

Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.

No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.

Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.

Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.

Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four.

This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it?….they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What. If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.

However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation.

To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.

To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal (which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes, which I discuss in my book, “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins” (pgs. 283-285). Glumes are botany’s name for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks.

While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won’t knock the seeds and grains off their stalks. At maturity they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it impossible to harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises.

That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human effort during what has come to be known as “threshing.” Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. And—here’s the kicker—each wild plant’s glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise!

In short, there is not a snowball’s chance this happened as botanists claim it did.


[Midway Point]
As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the “big four” of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, among others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens, and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World, came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets (humans have 23 in each).

The only “tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a “final model,” to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes, and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved.

This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take over as “leaders” of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, how could they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human “parents” would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts.

However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals something more…something ineffable…must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.

All examples of plant and animal “domestication” are incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt, India, and China. As with all such examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must get the credit.

The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys, and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60 per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles per hour while a thoroughbred tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun.

Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two distinctly different animal families: dogs and cats. They belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to their “dog only” diseases, they also get “cat only” ones. And the black spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat’s fur.

There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested, they were all—every one—genetically identical with all the others! This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been genetically altered in labs.

Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone”….

Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points squarely in that direction. And why? Because that, too, would move cheetahs into the forbidden zone occupied by You-Know-What.

The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by something now known as the “bottleneck effect.” What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population—which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates—at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the “bottleneck” theory is accepted as another scientific gospel.

Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house. It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those “bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the cheetah.

Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by all scientists in the 1980’s, when a group of geneticists decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and chimps split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world.

When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it. They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the paleontologists, who would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed.

Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening.

Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of “bottleneck effect” they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs. By doing so they left paleontologists able to still insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannahs of Africa as long as five million years ago, but between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago “something” happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to start reproducing again from a small population of survivors.

That the “something” remains wholly unknown is a given, although Creationists wildly wave their hands like know-it-alls at the back of a classroom, desperate to suggest it was the Great Flood. But because they refuse to move away from the Biblical timeline of the event (in the range of 6,000 years ago), nobody can take them seriously. Still, it seems the two sides might work together productively on this crucial issue. If only…..

Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong on Earth at all….that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to have developed here.

We are taught that by every scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.

Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “prehuman” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.

Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.

Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.

Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”

Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals.

Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.

Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?

Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.

Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check “The Scars Of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in “Everything You Know Is Wrong” (available only by ordering through www.iUniverse.com -- not Amazon.)

When all of the above is taken together—the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and humans—it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Designers. None of them can explain it because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms. We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.

My personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated animals. I believe what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don’t, so until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday getting them to notice our complaints and address them.

In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later editions of “Icons Of Evolution” will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a few “insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.

Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to raise, and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on strong convictions. Don’t expect it of anyone over forty, possibly even thirty. But somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.

The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not suiting up.
Kay
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 12:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
"3. These Fallen Angels have CLONED beings we call ALIENS."

KING OF CUPS REPLY--Prove it.

"4. These Fallen Angels possess or "inhabit" these cloned beings"

KING OF CUPS REPLY--Prove it.

"5. Because of the possessed nature of ALL of these aliens (children of the fallen angels), they (all of them) have been relegated by God to the status of Fallen Angels."

KING OF CUPS REPLY--Prove it.

-----------------------------


If you don´t believe in what is termed ´demon possession´, I would suggest a disc being sold right now by Coast to Coast am.

There are thousands of years of testimony of ´demon possession´.

Also, in regards to the clones, there are many abduction witnesses that claim this is true.

I would try some of these sites:

aliensandchildren.org
alienresistance.org
alienhunter.com


------------

Nearly every abductee says that the grays behave as slaves for the reptilians.
King of Cups

User ID: 1190
United States
07/27/2005 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
continued from above post.....

This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will.

Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “prehuman” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.

Muscle. Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker.

Skin. Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

Body Hair. Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs.

Fat. Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best.

Head Hair. All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.”

Fingernails & Toenails. All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals.

Skulls. The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

Brains. The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

Locomotion. The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

Speech. Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

Sex. Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache.)

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense.

Genetic Disorders. As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely. So wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread?

Genetic Relatedness. A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference.

Everything Else. The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check “The Scars Of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in “Everything You Know Is Wrong” (available only by ordering through www.iUniverse.com -- not Amazon.)

When all of the above is taken together—the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and humans—it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it, modern scientists cannot explain it, not Creationists nor Intelligent Designers. None of them can explain it because it is not explainable in only Earthbound terms. We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured.

My personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated animals. I believe what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don’t, so until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday getting them to notice our complaints and address them.

In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later editions of “Icons Of Evolution” will discuss the current era when scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a few “insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers.

Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to raise, and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on strong convictions. Don’t expect it of anyone over forty, possibly even thirty. But somewhere in the world the men and women have been born who will take Darwinism down and replace it with the truth.

The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not suiting up.
Kay
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
The truth of the matter is this; nothing is as real as Earth. (period). Look at what occultism teaches (Hermetic teachings). Occultism talks about reality being made up of astral planes. Earth, the life on it, is in the material plane. Occultism (traditional) says that the material plane is one of the lowest. That is wrong. On the material plane here we are "riding the crest of the wave of reality." Where would God be but at the point where the book is being written? And that is one thing that makes Earth so special; the ´book´ is written here like no other place, anywhere. We, are at the top, King of Cups. Forget all that horseraddish about beings from higher dimensions, blah, blah. To paraphrase your post, KoC, of course they want to ´unite´ with us, because here is where its at (period). You wanted to get close to God? Well, here ya are.

Fine. Don´t believe me. It no matter if ya do or don´t; that won´t change what Earth is. But I am telling you now; we humans here are in a much ´higher´ place than all those ´channelled´ ´higher beings´. Earth is where the great play is being written. Say ya don´t believe that Jesus was/is the son of God. If ya don´t believe it, that don´t change what IS. And Jesus incarnated HERE.

You want to complain how bad it is here on Earth? How much suffering goes on? Well, Earth is a microcosm of the universe (actually the universe is a macrocosm of Earth, but its easier to say it the other way). There is heaven and hell on Earth; we have it all. We are all, and don´t let no two-bit ´alien´ tell ya otherwise :)

---------------


Wow, excellent point, Jodido.

Also remember this: God´s gift of Grace (unmerited favor) has been given to the inhabitants of Earth.
King of Cups

User ID: 1190
United States
07/27/2005 01:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Kay
User ID: 15481

"If you don´t believe in what is termed ´demon possession´, I would suggest a disc being sold right now by Coast to Coast am.

There are thousands of years of testimony of ´demon possession´.

Also, in regards to the clones, there are many abduction witnesses that claim this is true.

I would try some of these sites:

aliensandchildren.org
alienresistance.org
alienhunter.com


------------

Nearly every abductee says that the grays behave as slaves for the reptilians."


King of Cups REPLY--That´s my point...they act as slaves or robots, not fallen angels with a will of their own. They´re likely controlled by other, malevolent aliens. However, that doesn´t mean they´re demonic nor does it mean they´re cloned. Interesting how TFT has shifted from saying that aliens are themselves fallen angels to now saying they are clones of the fallen angels. Such confusion for a message supposedly from God.

TFT has never answered a question posed to him in a previous thread: why would aliens, if they are indeed demonic, appear to us as the greys. Usually, this frightens people and they are repulsed by the invasiveness of the abduction. It seems to me that these so-called fallen angels, if they have the ability to shape-shift and appear to us as an alien, would make their physical appearance much more pleasing and human-like, thereby attracting us and making us more open to their alleged, deceptive plot.

As to demon possession, I do believe that people can be "possessed" of other, evil entities from other dimensions if they allow it. I believe, however, that we have control over that. However, to make a blanket statement that "aliens are demonic" is extraordinarily simplistic and deceptive.
Kay
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 01:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
TFT has never answered a question posed to him in a previous thread: why would aliens, if they are indeed demonic, appear to us as the greys. Usually, this frightens people and they are repulsed by the invasiveness of the abduction. It seems to me that these so-called fallen angels, if they have the ability to shape-shift and appear to us as an alien, would make their physical appearance much more pleasing and human-like, thereby attracting us and making us more open to their alleged, deceptive plot.


-------------------------------


I think that you are misunderstanding what we are saying. We don´t say that the grays are the fallen angels.

The grays are the clones of the fallen angels, who most believe are the reptilians.

I would imagine that they can shapeshift into several different images. For instance, the Nordics, the Insect - Preying mantus type and so on. They are spirit, so the can inhabit many different species.

They use clones because they cannot hide their animosity towards mankind.

Their experiments upon mankind show that they want something (evidently reproductive in nature) that man has. TFT´s explanation that this is a ´soul´ is the best one I have heard.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 01:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
I think that the Casseopians and the Wingmakers say that the ´good´ aliens are the Nordics - the ones that are very good looking, blonde, tall, Men in Black.

I believe their followers are not quite so afraid of their looks.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12769
07/27/2005 02:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Ever notice how people who feel aliens are good or are partly bad but with good ones also, always attempt to twist the Bible in some way for the benefit of their alien perceptions. The litmus test is the Bible. As soon as it is attacked, that ends the conversation for me whether man, alien or one claiming to be an angel from heaven!
dml

User ID: 4826
South Africa
07/27/2005 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
well said 886
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 10539
07/27/2005 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/27/2005 10:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
This was to follow the posting of User ID: 7008, i was in a hurry and had to make a quick post. This info was taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent web page.




[link to www.newadvent.org]

[link to www.revelations.org.za]




A "Bible Revelations" Presentation - Created 1998, updated 8 Aug. 2004 -
"GOD" or "ELOHIM"?

Are the words ´God´ and ´Lord´ holy names or, like some would insist, the names of pagan idols which should not be used in referring to the Almighty? An overview of the over-zealous rejection of irreplaceable words by a major section in the Sacred Name Movement





First of all, ´God´ is not a Name, like ´Peter´ or ´John´, but a Title - although most believers seem to think that the Name of the Most High is "God". If it is not a name, then there can be no question of whether it is a ´holy´ Name or not, in the same sense as the titles: Priest, Master, Judge, etc. do not necessarily refer to exclusively holy offices, but may even be used in idol worship or devil worship. The Bible itself refers to Satan as ´the god of this world . . .´ (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Jo. 5:1).

Many religious believers today, having discovered the True and original NAME of the Almighty, i.e. YHVH (and of the Hebrew Messiah YAHU´SHUAH), claim that He should not be referred to as "God", for "God" is an ancient NAME, they say, which was applied to a pagan deity of old.

We shall first consult a dictionary and then turn to the Bible for a definition of "God".

The Oxford Dictionary - God: "Superhuman being worshipped as having power over natural and human fortunes; image or animal worshipped as symbolising or embodying or possessing divine power; idol ... Supreme Being, Creator and Ruler of universe."

Young´s Concordance gives a proper and detailed account of the different original Hebrew words which refer to the Almighty and which our modern Bible translations render as ´God´ or ´gods´.

1. "EL" - Mighty One - 225 times. e.g. Gen. 14:20, "Blessed be the Most High EL".
2. "YHVH" (His Personal Name) - 248 times. e.g. Is. 40:10, "The Lord YHVH will come with a strong hand."
3. "Tzur" - A Rock - once. e.g. lsa. 44:8, "Yes, there is no Tzur, I know not any.".
4. "Elah" - An object of Worship - 88 times. e.g. Ezra 5:11, "We are the servants of Elah of heaven".
5. "Elohim" - Object of Worship - 2222 times. (Note: Plural used in Hebrew to denote plenitude of might). e.g. "EL" - Mighty One - 225 times. e.g. Gen. 14:20, "Blessed be the Most High EL". Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning Elohim created."
6. "Eloah" - An object of Worship - 55 times. e.g. Deut. 32:17, "They sacrificed unto devils, not to Eloah".
7. "Theos" Greek - Object of Worship - 1 274 times. e.g. Matt. 1:23, "They will call Him (the Messiah) Emmanuel, a Name which means ´Theos is with us´ ".

It is interesting to note that of the 4163 times that ´God´ is used in the Bible, 3639 times it refers to "an Object of Worship". Which other English word then shall we use for the Most High, to denote: "Object of Worship?" Titles like "Mighty One", does not necessarily refer to a Being Who is worthy of worship - Nimrod, ancient opposer of YHVH, proclaimed himself as "mighty one" also.

The Bible tells us in 1 Cor. 8:5.6, "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many "gods" ... yet for us there is one God, the Father..."

Deut. 10:17 "YHVH your God is God of gods and Lord of lords".
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

The latter Scripture stands as a Challenge to anyone, to translate it without using these very Titles, and yet convey this important concept of Who YHVH really is. When we test the translation of this Scripture by one of the most outspoken champions for the abolishment of the use of the Title ´God´, Dr Koster - in his version entitled The Scriptures, then we notice definite inconsistencies. We underline these inconsistencies in the following quote from this increasingly popular Sacred Name version of the Bible:

“For YHVH your Elohim is Elohim of mighty ones and Master of masters"

Even those who are not versed in the Hebrew language will notice these variations by comparing it with the Hebrew and the literal renderings above. This manipulation is typical of the agenda of translators of the Bible to endorse their personal views or teachings. Dr Koster contends that YHVH should be referred to as Elohim and not God which is claimed by many commentators to be the personal name of an idol of antiquity. To have ´Scriptural proof´ for this idea, he then forcibly mistranslates the original Hebrew to reflect his personal choice of elohim (refer blue indicators in above quote from his version and compare it with the Hebrew rendering 2 paragraphs back). And where the Hebrew does use elohim, Dr Koster chooses to translate it to mighty ones - once again proving his preferred manipulation. Had he correctly used elohim rather than mighty ones, he would have damaged his very teaching, for then it would have proven that elohim is as much used for referring to pagan idols as is the title God! - and to be consistent in his reasoning, he would then have had to reject the use of elohim in referring to YHVH also!

Concerning the matter of holiness, we can therefore say that there are many gods (objects claiming worship) - but none of them HOLY (and thus deserving of worship) bar One: the Almighty and Eternal Most High Creator (Rev. 15:4) - and HE HAS A NAME which is sacred. A title in itself can never be holy - the office which it depicts, most certainly yes! Strikingly, whichever divine or sanctified office there may be in the Plan of the Almighty, the same is also available to mankind, including ... yes, we´ll read it from the Bible, ... that of "God".

John 10:34, 35 Messiah speaking. "Is it not written in your Law, ´l said you are Gods?´ (referring to Ps 82:6 where the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used, as it is used for YHVH throughout!). So, the Law uses the word Gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and Scripture cannot be rejected ..." .

1 John 3:2 "It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is".

But, in case you think these statements are blasphemous, please note that this ´office´ will not befall everyone who professes to follow Him, for the very next verse states:

1 John 3:3 "Every one who thus hopes in Him, purifies himself as He is pure".

Can you wonder why the Bible is emphatic in its instruction to us, to "... strive for the holiness without which no one will see YHVH " (Heb. 12:14). Yes, unless we are like Him, we shall not see Him!"

Indeed, the Titles ´God´ and ´Lord´ were also given to pagan idols and systematically, it became regarded as NAMES for the idols. Similarly. Christianity, lacking the knowledge about the Sacred Names, have been deluded into believing that the Almighty´s Name is ´God´ or ´Lord´.

If those who claim that the Almighty should not be referred to as ´God´ are correct, because idols were also named ´God´ or ´Lord´, then they should also discard all other Titles of YHVH and YAHU´SHUAH, for those idols were credited with every title thinkable, e.g.. "God (or Lord) of Heaven", "Lord of Hosts", "The Resurrected One", "The Supreme One", "Lord of the earth", "Saviour" "Healer", "Mighty One", "Protector", "Messiah", etc.

Not only were idols named or referred to by titles, but, it seems, also by many or most words referring to religious worship, like the words: holy, sacred, faith, hope, success, etc. Resultantly, in an effort to purify our religious vocabulary, it is often suggested (as also by Dr Koster) that all these words be removed from our vocabulary!

Similarly, all the attributes of YHVH have been identified with idols! But that surely does not earn YHVH the attributes of pagan idols! In the same way, we cannot say "God" is a pagan title because idol worshippers claimed the same title for their idols - or any other title for that matter. Those who prohibit the use of the word "God", do so on the strength of Ex 23:13, "Make no mention of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." Supporters of this stand should qualify the prohibition more accurately, in that it only applies to the use of the NAMES of those idols. Every idol or god has a personal NAME - and it is the mentioning of these NAMES that is forbidden. And it should be logic that it really is the mentioning of these idol names in worshipping them, or of promotion or proselytising in favour of them, which is forbidden. If we were truly restricted from generally mentioning their names, for instance in our efforts to teach others not to worship them (which would be impossible to convey without mentioning those names that should not be worshipped), such prohibition would in fact promote the cause for idol-worship!

In this respect, it is the position of BIBLE REVELATIONS to reject the use of the name ´Amen´ (one of ancient Egypt´s most popular idols) which is so commonly used in worship by both Christians and Jews. Strange how many Sacred Name believers who strongly condemn the use of ´God´ and other titles for the Most High as ´pagan´, refuse to reject the use of ´Amen´ in their prayers and religious confirmations. Refer Amen - the name of a pagan idol

The Eternal´s Name most certainly is not ´God´ - but His TITLE indeed is. There are thousands of verses of Scripture to bear out this fact. How else shall we describe His Supremacy if we were not to use these titles, like ´God´, which even infidels and the illiterate understand to mean: ´The Uppermost Sovereign Being´?

In fact, it is the conviction of BIBLE REVELATIONS, that this supposed prohibition in fact smothers or dilutes the proclamation of the Greatest Truth in Scripture, namely that YAHU´SHUAH is YHVH Himself - "God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14 & 19:16).

Some will contend that the correct word for "god" is El, or Elohim (Hebrew). They have even gone so far as printing Bibles which use these Hebrew words only. This, however, is tantamount to insisting that we call our Father in Heaven "Abba" (Hebrew) and not ´Father´ for, no doubt, the pagans also call their deities by the TITLE of ´Father´ - in whichever language they are speaking. This is borne out by the fact that one such restoration version of the Bible even lists the titles "Pa" and "Ma" as unfitting.

Insisting on the original Hebrew word for ´God´. i.e. ´Elohim´, is of no avail, for it merely changes the same ´pagan´ title back to Hebrew. If it is pagan in English, it will be pagan in Hebrew!

Indeed, they have also failed to discover that El was the personal NAME of yet another pagan deity! One specific Holy Name edition (by Traina) goes as far as insisting on the exclusive use of "Elohim" for the Most High, yet uses this very same word for pagan deities! (Ex. 23:13; Deut. 11:28, etc. etc.)

We quote from Traina´s Holy Name Bible Ex. 23:13:"...and make no mention of the name of other elohim, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."

After all, even the 1st Commandment forbids us to have ´other elohim´ before YHVH - for He alone is our ´Elohim´.

So, if we are not to refer to YHVH as ´God´ because of strange gods having been called ´God´ - how then do we justify the exclusive use of ´Elohim´ when referring to Him, if the Bible and YHVH Himself refers to strange gods as ´elohim´ - His very own Title? This reasoning is obviously subject to great inconsistency.

The Title "El" also forms part of the Names of two most important divine Messengers - Michael (´Who is like God´) and Gabriel (´God is Mighty´) in the Bible.

The same translation also insists on using ´Master´ for ´Lord´ which, they say, means ´Baal´. However. Baal means ´Master´ as much as it means ´Lord´. If we are not to use the title of ´Lord´ for the Most High because strange gods carried this title, then we should also refrain from giving YHVH the titles of King. Protector, Healer, Saviour, etc.. for the idols also carried these titles! Eventually we will end up being restricted from exalting YHVH altogether for lack of words to describe Him by. And this is exactly where the opposing powers want us to be!

We would never dream of retreating to the very popular, but deceitful stand of "God will understand ...". Let us take heed, however, not to become so extreme that we no longer communicate with the outside world.

Paganism Called Their Idols By The Sacred Names Of The God Of Israel!

The point that reveals the total inconsistency of this ´puritan´ school of thought most pertinently, is the fact that pagans usurped the Sacred Names of the God of Israel to name their idols. Consider the following extracts from pagan history:

"Pagan leaders used the name Yahweh. The name was inscribed on the Moabite Stone in Jordan about 830 B.C. exactly as it appeared in the Old Testament. The Lachish Letters, written between 589-587 B.C. and discovered in 1935 in the ancient town of Lachish near Jerusalem, frequently used the name Yahweh. " (Source: [link to www.plim.org] )

" Yw, Yawu, Yah, Iahu, IeuoYw or Yawu is given as the original name of Yam in the Myth of Ba`al from Ugarit, and is probably the same as Ieuo in Philo of Byblos´ Phoenician History. He is possibly to be identified with Yahweh. Coincidentally, a likely pronunciation of Yod-Heh-Vau-Heh really is Yahuh (Yahoo!)." (Source: [link to www.geocities.com]

" The Protoindo European god Yayash, Yaë or Yave, a protective god whose symbol was a tree, signifying possibly ´"walking", "going", "a pilgrim", has been dated back to the Indus River valley, circa 2900 B.C.E. He has been identified with the Turko Syrian YHVH, a "sacred animal or organization".

"Yahweh appears to have been originally a sky god - a god of thunder and lightning. He was associated with mountains and was called by the enemies of Israel ´a god of the hills´. His manifestation was often as fire, as at Mount Sinai and in the burning bush." - Great Events of Bible Times

"Originally, these four consonants [in YHWH] represented the four members of the Heavenly Family:
Y represented El the Father;
H was Asherah the Mother;
W corresponded to He the Son; and
H was the Daughter Anath.

"In accordance with the royal traditions of the time and region, God´s mysterious bride, the Matronit, was also reckoned to be his sister. In the Jewish cult of the Cabbala God´s dual male-female image was perpetuated. Meanwhile other sects perceived the Shekinah or Matronit as the female presence of God on Earth. The divine marital chamber was the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple, but from the moment the Temple was destroyed, the Matronit was destined to roam the Earth while the male aspect of Jehovah was left to rule the heavens alone."
- Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, p. 18 (Source: Biblical Beginnings in Canaan, Op. Cit.)

"A letter found in a mound northwest of the modern town of Ta´annek written in the fifth century B.C. proves that ´Yah´ was a deity of the Canaanites. Yah is associated with the Canaanitish Mother-goddess, Ashtart-Anat as seen by the Father-Mother titles of the deity of the Jews at Elephantine. There, the title of Anat-Yaw is seen as well as Ashim-Bethel and Afat-Bethel where the titles of Astarte are combined with the Sun-god, Bethel. At Gaza, Yah appears as a Sun-god on a coin and coins were frequently inscribed with the figure of Ashtart-Yaw, Anat-Yaw, and Anat-Bethel, which corresponds to the Phoenician Melk-Ashtart and Eshmun-Ashtart" - The Mythology Of All Races, Vol. 5, p. 44.

"Yah was identified with the Aramaic Thunder-god, Adad. A coin from the fourth century B.C. in southern Philisti (when the Jews were in subjection to the Persian kings) has the only known representation of the Hebrew Deity. The letters YHW were inscribed just above a bird which the god held on his arm. The most likely identification of the god Yah of Gaza is the Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic Sun-god El or Elohim whom the Hebrews had long since identified with Yah." (ibid., pp. 42-43).

"The collection of ancient manuscripts found at the Jewish colony of Elephantine demonstrates the use of Canaanite religious terminology in conjunction with the name of Israel´s God Yahu. Such compound names as Anath-Yahu, Anath-Bethel, Ishum-Bethel, and Herem-Bethel are found there. These names all represent the attempt to combine differing philosophies and religious beliefs that were prevalent in the centuries following the Israelite conquest of Canaan. For example, Anath was the ancient Canaanite goddess, the sister of Baal (Bruce, p. 53), and Baal was one of the ancient names for Nimrod." (Hislop, p. 232).

"It was from the divine name Yah that the Greeks took ´Ie´ in the invocations of the gods, especially the god Apollo. The name ´Ie´ was written from right to left and inscribed over the great door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi (Taylor, p. 183). Iao, a variant of the Tetragrammaton, was applied to the Graeco-Egyptian god Harpocrates or Horus. Horus was called Harpocrates by the Greeks. The ancient Greeks had an acclamation similar to Hallelujah (Praise you Yah). They used Hallulujee in the beginning and ending of their hymns in honor of Apollo." - Taylor, p. 183. Source: [link to www.bibleresearch.org]

"Many Vedic chants of praise also contain Yah, e.g. Rama-yah, Isha-ya (Yah my Divine Husband), Jai-ya (Yah as joy); Shiva-ya (Yah is purity, holiness, truth); Krishna ya (Yah is the transcendental loving Witness); Vishnu yah (Yah is all pervasive Light); Kali ya (Yah is the creative manifesting force or energy)." etc. etc. Source: [link to www.corplink.com.au]

This evidence totally flaws the restrictive reasoning that "we should not refer to YHVH as ´God´ or ´Lord´ because these were the names of pagan idols." If this restriction was truly valid, then we would also have to refrain from calling Him by His Sacred Name ´YAH, YHVH or YAHU", for these Names were also used for pagan idols!

Strange how these ´puritans´ will overlook and refuse to apply this restriction to their vocabulary as they insist for ´God; Lord´ and a host of other religious terms. And indeed, if these restrictions should apply consistently, we would be left without words to communicate the Message of YHVH - and that is exactly where the opposing forces against the Truth of God want us: bound and restricted.

We certainly underwrite the statement that we should not use ´God´ or ´Lord´ as a NAME for the Most High, for in this habit lies much deceit concealed - HE HAS A NAME - USE IT IF YOU LOVE HIM! (Hosea 2:16-18). But we do not agree with those who maintain that "LORD" and "God" means "a pagan idol". This borders on sacrilege and blasphemy, for THE TRUE GOD (YHVH) IS NOT A PAGAN IDOL!

We have seen, in writing, statements by believers, that "Jesus Christ is the name of a pagan idol". We must call for extreme caution here although we underwrite the claim that the name ´Jesus Christ´ comes from the Greek ´Je-Zeus Christos´; and that it most probably refers to the Greek idol Zeus; that this name crept into early Christianity after pagan emperor Constantine, a Zeus worshipper, ´converted´ the pagan Roman masses to Christianity for selfish political gain; that the attributes of Zeus were accredited to the Hebrew Messiah as well as the Zeus-mass (Xmas) (birthday) on 25 December and the whole pagan concept of a 3-headed god (Trinity). In fact, we go a step further and identify the mystery sign 666 (Rev.13:18) as the name ´JeZeus Christos´ - but BEWARE! There is only ONE PERSON Who gave His Life and was crucified on Calvary in order to secure everlasting life for His true followers and Who rose from the Grave on the third day. THIS PERSON is known to the world as ´Jesus Christ´ - and although this may be the name of a pagan idol which Satan managed to palm off on the righteous Hebrew Messiah, it still DOES NOT MAKE THAT PERSON A PAGAN IDOL! Refer 666 - Mark of the Beast

The Message which this study strives to bring to the world, is that THE ONE WHOM THEY SHOULD WORSHIP AS THE GOD ABOVE ALL GODS (Deut. 10:17) is the SAME ONE WHOM THEY KNOW AS THE LAMB OF CALVARY - ONLY... HIS TRUE NAME IS NOT ´JESUS CHRIST´ BUT YAHU´SHUAH - THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND!

Hosea 2:17,19 "I (YHVH) will take the names of the Baals (lords) off her (His Bride´s) lips".

(Bibliographical reference: "The Ancient Gods" - The History of Religion, by E.O. James, Prof. Emeritus of the History of Religion, University of London - Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 10:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard:

we underwrite the claim that the name ´Jesus Christ´ comes from the Greek ´Je-Zeus


--------------

really dumb
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/27/2005 11:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
And some more ELOHIM info for those in need of knowledge.

I hope you do not mind me posting this on your thread TFT, if so let me know and i will halt as it is for questions about Aliens (Fallen Angels)

[link to www.altupc.com]



ELOHIM AND THE PLURAL PASSAGES

by

Daniel Segraves

Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism

January 11-13, 1996

The first time the word "God" is mentioned in Scripture (Genesis 1:1), it is translated from the Hebrew ELOHIM. This word, which appears 2250 times in the Old Testament, is translated "God" when used in reference to the one true God1, but it is also translated "god" when used in reference to a false god2 or "gods" when referring to a multiplicity of false deities, "god" or "gods" in reference to human beings4, "angels,"5 "judges."6 mighty," in reference to a human prince7 and to thunder8, and "great,": in reference to Rachel´s competition with her sister.9

To understand how ELOHIM is used of the true God, it is essential to understand how it can be used in such a variety of ways. ELOHIM is a masculine plural noun. ELOHIM, the singular form of the word, appears 54 times and is also used in reference to both the true God and to false gods. ELOAH is from the Hebrew EL, which appears 226 times. EL signifies strength and power.

The "im" ending on a Hebrew word (as in ELOHIM) makes the word plural, like putting an "s" on the end of many English words. But, unlike the English language, the plural form of a Hebrew word may not signify more than one. Though the Hebrew plural can certainly refer to more than one (and the Hebrew language also has a dual ending, signifying two), the Hebrew also uses plural forms when only one subject is in view, to indicate intensity (something like the "est" ending on some English words), fullness, something that flows, or multiplicity of attributes.

C. L. Seow points out that when ELOHIM is used "as a proper name, or when referring to Israel´s God, it is treated as singular. Elsewhere it should be translated as ´gods.´"10 When ELOHIM is used is used of Israel´s God, "the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called ´plural of majesty.´"11 Though ELOHIM is plural, it must be accompanied by plural modifiers and plural verb forms to function as a plural noun. If accompanied by singular modifiers and singular verb forms, it functions as a singular noun.12

ELOHIM can be accurately translated two ways: the singular "God" (or "god") or the plural "gods." If it is translated "gods," and in this case the plural form of the word must not be taken to indicate a plurality of gods, but a plurality of the majestic attributes of the one true God and that He is the supremely powerful one. The plural ending either makes a word plural, meaning more than one, or it makes a singular referent more intense. The latter is the case where Elohim refers to the one true God. Grammatically, then, ELOHIM does not suggest that Israel´s God is plural or more than one. If the reason for the plural ending is to indicate more than one, the word must be translated "gods." This is not acceptable to the monotheism of the Old Testament. (See, for example, Deuteronomy 6:4.)

Whenever ELOHIM refers to the one true God, it is always accompanied by singular verbs, although ELOHIM is plural. Whenever ELOHIM refers to more than one false god, it is accompanied by plural verbs. This is significant. Grammatically, when ELOHIM refers to the one true God only, although the word is plural. If the reason ELOHIM is used of the true God is to indicate He is more than one, plural verbs would have to be used.

For example, in the first verse of the Bible, the third person masculine singular verb "created: is used with ELOHIM. Since the verb is singular, it is required that He who did the creating is singular. In this case, the only option left to explain the plural form of ELOHIM is that ELOHIM refers to the fullness and intensity of the many majestic attributes of the one true God.

In Exodus 32:4, where ELOHIM is used of a plurality of false gods, the verb "brought...up out: is third person common plural. The plural verb demands that ELOHIM be referring to more than one false god. Although in this case only one golden calf was made, it apparently represented to the Israelites the worship of cows, considered sacred by the Egyptians. Thus the one calf represented to them more than just itself; it represented the gods of the Egyptians. In Deuteronomy 4:28 a series of third person masculine plural verbs, "see," "hear," "eat," and "smell," are used to describe the inabilities of false gods (ELOHIM) This demonstrates that if the intention of Elohim is to indicate more than one, plural verbs will be used. If the intention of ELOHIM is to indicate only one, singular verbs are used.

It is helpful to note that when the inspired Greek of the New Testament quotes from an Old Testament reference where ELOHIM is used of the one true God, the Greek THEOS (God) is singular. (See Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9.) When the New Testament quotes an Old Testament reference where ELOHIM refers to people or false gods, the plural form of THEOS is used. (See Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35 and Exodus 32:1; Acts 7:40.) The Greek languages does not use plurals in the same way as the Hebrew, that is, to indicate intensity, fullness, and plurality of attributes. Since both the Hebrew and the Greek are inspired, if the point of ELOHIM, when used of the true God, was to indicate God is more than one, the Greek would use the plural form of the noun. The fact that the Greek uses the singular THEOS where the Hebrew scriptures use the plural ELOHIM of the true God settles any question as to the singularity of the true God. Indeed, in the example of Psalm 45:6, ELOHIM is used of the Messiah alone. There is only one Messiah, but the plural noun is used to indicate His immeasurable majesty.

All of this helps us to understand the plural "us" in Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. Some might suppose that these plural pronouns indicate more than one god or that God is somehow more than one. But the grammar of the passages indicates otherwise.

In Genesis 1:26, ELOHIM (plural) said (third masculine singular), "Let us make13 (first person common plural) man (noun masculine singular) in our image ("image" is a masculine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness ("likeness" is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix)."

Grammatically, the words, "make," "us" and "our" in this verse cannot refer to Elohim alone, for the verb directly connected with ELOHIM ("said") is singular. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration means the Bible is inspired, even to its very words, and inspiration extends to every word in the Bible. This means even verb tense and number is inspired. If ELOHIM had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If ELOHIM were more than one, it would be appropriate to use the plural form of "make" and the plural pronouns "us" and "our, " but in that case, the verb "said" would be plural as well.

Thus, the grammar makes clear that when the singular ELOHIM spoke, He included someone else in His statement. The Jewish people, who are of course strictly monotheistic, have long held that in Genesis 1:26 ELOHIM addressed the angels in a courteous consideration for the attendants at His heavenly court when He said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." This is not unreasonable, for Job 38:7 indicates the angels were present at creation, rejoicing in the works of God. Others suppose we should take the plural pronouns, like the plural ELOHIM, as "plural of majesty." Ezra 4:18 is appealed to for support. Here, in response to a letter, King Artaxerxes says, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." The letter was to Artaxerxes alone, and in the same breath he uses both a plural and a singular pronoun of himself. Historically, kings of the earth have used plural pronouns of themselves. Perhaps that is the use the Great King makes of a plural verb and plural pronouns in the few verses of Scripture where they appear. But if so, one is left to wonder why, in thousands of cases, ELOHIM uses singular verbs and pronouns of Himself, and why He would use plural verbs and nouns in only four verses in the entire Bible. Why would He not use either singular verbs and pronouns exclusively or plural verbs or pronouns exclusively? The sparse use of plural verbs and pronouns must indicate some specific, limited purpose. The simplest explanation, and the one which agrees with the inspired grammar most closely, is that in these few verses ELOHIM is graciously including others, angelic beings, in His address. Angels did not actually make man, any more than believers today actually work miracles (see John 14:12; Matthew 10:8); God has graciously allowed us to be laborers together with Him (I Corinthians 3:9).Perhaps there is some similarity here to the way God included the angels in His work.

But regardless of the exact meaning of Genesis 1:26, it cannot mean ELOHIM is more than one. In Exodus 20:2, the one God of Israel declared, "I am the LORD your God." The word "LORD" is "YHWH," the third person singular form of the Hebrew verb "to be" (HAYAH). "YHWH" means "He is." Again, a singular word is connected to ELOHIM, which is plural. Grammatically, the meaning of "I am the LORD your God" cannot be, "I am the ´He is gods.´" A singular word cannot have a plural object, unless-in keeping with common Hebrew usage-the point of the plural is to indicate intensity, fullness, or multiplicity of attributes, not plurality of persons or things.

Since every verse leading up to Genesis 1:26 uses singular verbs and pronouns (see the singular pronouns in verses 5 and 10) exclusively of the creative work of God, and a singular verb ("said") in verse 26, the introduction of a plural verb ("make") and plural pronouns ("us" and "our") in verse 26 must signify the fact that the singular God is including others in His address. Since there were no other intelligent beings created up until that time except the angels, His words must have been addressed to them.

Genesis 3:22 has a grammatical construction similar to 1:26. The LORD (third person singular form of YHWH) God (ELOHIM) said (third person masculine singular), "Behold, the man is become as one of us (first person common plural), to know good and evil." Grammatically, the "us" must include someone other than God, for a plural pronoun cannot have a singular antecedent. Again, He must have included the angels in His address; they certainly were aware of matters of good and evil, since Lucifer had rebelled against God prior to this. (See Ezekiel 28:11-16.) The fact that, after His statement "man is become as one of us," God placed cherubim (angels) at the east of the garden of Eden with a flaming sword to prevent men from returning to the garden supports the idea that God used the plural "us" to include angels in His conversation.

The grammar of Genesis 11:6-7 is even more telling. Here, ELOHIM does not appear. Yahweh (translated "LORD"), whose name is the third person singular form of the verb "to be," is recorded as having said (third person masculine singular), "Go to (second person masculine singular), let us go down (first person common plural) and there confound (first person common plural) their language." It is fascinating to note that the word translated "go to" (HAVAH) is an imperative, a command. It is a second person masculine singular imperative, which is understood to mean "YOU (second person singular) go to." It could also be translated "come," as in an imperative command, "YOU come." The understood "you" is singular, not [plural. Grammatically, at this point Yahweh is speaking to another person, giving that person a command. There is nothing here, according to the grammar, to indicate one divine Person is speaking to another. It would seem strange indeed if one divine Person COMMANDED another divine Person to do something. Instead, Yahweh is speaking to someone else. When Yahweh says, "Let us go down," the verb form is first person common plural. Thus, when Yahweh (the one true God whose name is a third person singular verbal form) goes down to confound the language of the people, He is accompanied by someone else. In this case, He was apparently accompanied by only one angel.

This should not be thought strange, for in Genesis 18 Abraham was visited by three "men" (verse 2), one of whom turned out to be the LORD ("Yahweh" [a theophany; God in angel form]) (verses 10, 13-15, 17) and the other two of whom were angels (verse 16; 19:1). If God wishes to be accompanied by angels in any of His activities, that is His prerogative. If He wishes to speak to them, to include them in His activity, He will doubtless use plural words to do so.

The only other case in Scripture where a plural pronoun is used in a way some think implies plurality in God is Isaiah 6:8. Here Isaiah says, "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send (first person common singular), and who will go for us (first person common plural)?" The plural pronoun "us" cannot have the singular "I" as its antecedent. It seems apparent from the context of Isaiah 6:1-7 that there is a great deal of angelic activity in this vision. Apparently, the one true God is again including the heavenly angelic court in His address. It is significant that only He, God, does the sending, but someone is needed to go on behalf of all heaven´s inhabitants. God does not say, ´Whom shall we send," but "Whom shall I send." The angels´ concern for God´s holiness in the context underscores the fact that Isaiah´s mission to backslidden Israel was of interest to them as well as to God. Indeed, the conversation Isaiah heard in verse 8 was apparently the Lord addressing the angels. In Isaiah 6;7, an angel speaks directly to Isaiah. There is no indication in verse 8 that the Lord was speaking directly to him. Instead, the Lord is addressing His heavenly court, and Isaiah volunteers his service. This strengthens the view that in Genesis 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7, God is addressing angels.

That God does indeed address His heavenly court is indicated by I Kings 22:19-23. Here, Yahweh is sitting on His throne with all heaven´s host (angels) standing on His right and left. Yahweh asks, "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth- gilead?" Various angels answered in different ways, until one came forth and stood before Yahweh and said, "I will persuade him." Yahweh answered, "Wherewith?" The angel responded, ´I will go forth, and I will be a laying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Yahweh answered, "Thou shall persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so."

The grammar of Scripture is inspired. When ELOHIM refers to the one true God, singular verbs and pronouns are used. When the one true God reaches out to include others in His activities, plural verbs and pronouns are used. These do not indicate any plurality of gods or that the true God is more than one. "When [ELOHIM] refers to the God of Israel it is always singular in concept, even though it has a masculine plural ending."14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
# 1. In the first five books of the Bible, ELOHIM is used 682 times. In hundreds of these references, it is to the one true God of Israel.
# 2. Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 32:39
# 3. Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4; Exodus 12:12; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:28; 23:13, 24, 32-33; 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31, 34:15-17; Leviticus 19:4; Numbers 25:2; 33:4; Deuteronomy 4:28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2-3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6-7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 30:17; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:17, 37.
# 4. Exodus 7:1; Psalms 82:6.
# 5. Psalm 8:5.
# 6. Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9.
# 7. Genesis 23:6.
# 8. Exodus 9:28.
# 9. Genesis 30:8.
# 10. C. L. Seow, A GRAMMAR FOR BIBLICAL HEBREW (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), p. 19.
# 11. Ibid.
# 12. Page H. Kelly, BIBLICAL HEBREW: AN INTRODUCTORY GRAMMAR (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1992, p. 32.
# 13. The word "make" is translated from the Hebrew ASAH ("to make" or "do") as opposed to BARA ("to create"). God allowed the angels to participate in the sense of ASAH, but not in the sense of BARA.
# 14. Ethelyn Simon, et. al., THE FIRST HEBREW PRIMER FOR ADULTS, 2nd ed. (Oakland, CA: EKS Publishing Company, 1983), p. 48.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/27/2005 11:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
"This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard"

Remember the name or were the name is derived from is not important, it is what the name means to you that is important. Do not let the theory of where the name Jesus comes from help you miss the value of the study. There is good information in the study and i applaud the person - persons who put the effort into it.
King of Cups

User ID: 8314
United States
07/27/2005 11:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
"Grammatically, the words, "make," "us" and "our" in this verse cannot refer to Elohim alone, for the verb directly connected with ELOHIM ("said") is singular. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration means the Bible is inspired, even to its very words, and inspiration extends to every word in the Bible. This means even verb tense and number is inspired. If ELOHIM had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If ELOHIM were more than one, it would be appropriate to use the plural form of "make" and the plural pronouns "us" and "our, " but in that case, the verb "said" would be plural as well."

Well I can´t expect Christians not to twist even grammar and construction of sentences. The phrase "even verb tense and number is inspired" says it all. No, Elohim refers to the plural expression of Creator(s) and the verse "let US make man in OUR image" means just what it says.

Funny how we are to accept the literal meaning of the Bible except when it proves the Christian dogma is false.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/27/2005 11:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
"Well I can´t expect Christians not to twist even grammar and construction of sentences. The phrase "even verb tense and number is inspired" says it all. No, Elohim refers to the plural expression of Creator(s) and the verse "let US make man in OUR image" means just what it says."

"Funny how we are to accept the literal meaning of the Bible except when it proves the Christian dogma is false."


You need some more?

Until now it was observed that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular. However, in the book of Genesis we find three passages in which God speaks in the first person plural as "we", "our", and "us". The first such passage deals with the creation of mankind, in which God declares, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness that they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens and the animals and over the whole earth and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth." (Gen 1:26). Who is this "us" and "our"? Does God have multiple personalities? Is there more than one God?

Immediately before the words "Let us make man in our image" we read "And (he) Elohim said" וַיֹּאמֶ&#151​2; אֱלֹהִים. The word וַיֹּאמֶ&#151​2; "and he said" is the 3rd person singular form of the verb אמר (qal inverted future). This indicates that the speaker is a singular individual. Were Elohim a plurality the verse would have opened "And (they) Elohim said" וַיֹּאמְ&#151​2;וּ אֱלֹהִים. The phrase "Elohim said/ spoke" appears about fifty times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in every single instance it is "(he) God said/ spoke" in the singular and never "(they) God said/ spoke" in the plural.

From the words "Let us make man" we might expect mankind to be created by multiple creators. The word נַעֲשֶׂה "let us make" is the 1st person plural (qal future) of the verb ע?ׂה (to do, to make). The נ- prefix indicates that it is "us" which seems to imply multiple creators. Similarly, from the words בְּצַלְמ&#146​1;נוּ כִּדְמוּ&#151​4;ֵנוּ "in our image after our likeness" we might expect man to be made in the images of multiple individuals. The suffix -?וּ at the end of each word is the possessive suffix which means "our". We might think that "our" image and "our" likeness refers to multiple individuals with similar characteristics with which mankind was to be endowed. Yet when the creation of mankind actually takes place, in the very next verse, it says, "And (he) Elohim created man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him" וַיִּבְר&#146​4;א אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמ&#149​3;ֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ (Gen 1:27). So man was not created by the multiple "we" but by the single individual Elohim who is termed "He". Nor was man created in the image of a group of multiple individuals but only in the single image of Elohim which is described as "His image", that is, the single image of the Creator. Were Elohim a multiplicity the verse would have to have read, "And (they) Elohim created man in their image, in the image of Elohim they created them" וַיִּבְר&#145​6;אוּ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמ&#146​4;ם בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ. Since this is not what Scripture says we must conclude once again that Elohim is a singular individual.


[link to www.israelofgod.org]
One who knows the Bible
User ID: 1179
United States
07/27/2005 11:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Talk about twisting grammar or translation:

Je-Zeus?

I´m still laughing about that one!
Perhaps
User ID: 2224
United States
07/28/2005 12:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
King of Cups and TFT,

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All the same, all different. Seems to me God is plural. Plain and simple. This may very well be an answer to your plural dilema.

To ask anyone who is human to explain God and Angels in terms that are easy to understand and correct seems a bit of a stretch. None of us can explain these things. See Job and the questions put to him by God.

Frankly I think your being silly.

That is of course ok with me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/28/2005 12:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
"I´m still laughing about that one!"

Well mighty one who knows the bible explain where the name is derived from? Please set the record strait and let everyone know.

It is easy to LOL and ridicule some ones effort but please explain why.
TRAINED FOR THIS (OP)

User ID: 1784
United States
07/28/2005 12:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Perhaps
User ID: 15543
7/28/2005
12:06 am EDT

King of Cups and TFT,

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All the same, all different. Seems to me God is plural. Plain and simple. This may very well be an answer to your plural dilema.

To ask anyone who is human to explain God and Angels in terms that are easy to understand and correct seems a bit of a stretch. None of us can explain these things. See Job and the questions put to him by God.

Frankly I think your being silly.

That is of course ok with me.

REPLY: You make a most excellent observation. The silly activity is being done to distract from the purpose of the thread. Hence we see the mini-seminars being given by King of cups. He will not start a thread of his own with his beliefs but as a seeker of attention he is most disrepectful to the PURPOSE of the thread.

However, every time he attempts to distract from the meaning of this thread he PROLONGS the thread and is therefore helping to keep the information I present before those who are reading or WILL read this thread. For this I thank him. At this point instead of dealing with the major issue about the aliens, he prefers to deal with minor issues such as the meaning of Elohim. What difference does it make to debate over words and yet miss out on eternal life. Surely his mission is to attempt to prevent the information about the alien agenda from being the main issue.

Finally, Perhaps, you are most correct that the plurality of Elohim only serves to prove the Godhead or trinity aspect of God being the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. The three together are responsible for all creation.

Thanks for commenting............
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3977
Canada
07/28/2005 12:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Forgive me TFT i will refrain from posting on this thread, I am sorry that the discussion has taken away from what you wish to express.

If i do post again it will be a question for you.
TRAINED FOR THIS (OP)

User ID: 1784
United States
07/28/2005 09:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Will answer more questions later today. Have a blessed day.

Thanks for reading.......
Jodido
User ID: 2060
United States
07/28/2005 09:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
to AC 4009; you are contributing much to this thread :) The fact that peeps are ´discussing´ what TFT has to say here, and contributing their own takes on things, is a good thing. Why do you thunk the Tower of Babel happened?

About the plurality of God, have you read Zecharia Sitching or Graham Hancock? Graham Hancock´s The Fingerprints of The Gods is a good book. I also hear his newest work (possibly in collarboation with another author?) is good, I forget the name of it.

But it just addresses my take on things: That this universe is God. What is God but the Creator? When talking about God always refer back to your definition of God.... For instance Man is made in God´s image. What has Man been doind here on Earth? Creating. For instance Man has created the history of Earth (well, look at the last 500 years of history, anyway...). If Man was created in God´s image, and God is the Creator, what to ya think Man does?
From my past experience and background learning I have come to see it much in terms of quantum physics. When I was a young lad I iterated that Man would, through science (maybe even computers), prove the existance of God. What does ´science´ do but prove things :) I think through the ´dicovery´ and investigations of quantum physics, Man has proven the existance of God (whether knowing or not...). What is quantum physics about, well one big thing is this; is it a particle or a wave? Quantum physics shows it is both. Hence the plurality of God.
I view Man as being co-creators with God. What else would be? What else is made in God´s image? Angels aren´t, only Man is. Man, I see, is the wave, where the singular God would be the particle, all within God. I see it this way; God is withing each Man, on Earth, while we are all within God. Its like a symbiotic relationship. Like God created a Sims game, then gave the sims the free will to act on their own, within His created game.

It is said that Earth is special because this is the only planet that has the Word of God. I say that is nothin when compared to us individually having a little God within us. Thats what makes Earth special; Man has God within him, on Earth, like nowhere else.

Another thing about the plurality of God. Do you believe in aliens? Have you ever seen a UFO, alien, or studied enough to know that its not just a trend? In my view, from what I have come across in my studies, and what makes sense to me; is that aliens do the will of God, often without knowing it. Just think about it, compared to aliens, we on Earth know nothing, but we believe in God alot moreso I think. The aliens, in all their smarts, do not believe in God the way we do. Therfore it may be even easier for them to do God´s will, without knowing it. Yes, I am talking about seeding, on Earth. There is much evidence for it. You see, if aliens are real, they exist within God as much as we earthlings do. And that would explain some references found in the Bible of the plurality of God.

In my view we Earthlings are all aliens, some having come to Earth later than others, much like some have emigrated to the U.S.A. earlier than others. Earth is a melting pot....
Jodido
User ID: 2060
United States
07/28/2005 09:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Now, about what TFT predicts; I think what TFT is predicting is much the ´worst case scenario´ that we see. Like Nancy Leider´s predictions. BTW, I have it on good authority that Earth will not turn on its axis, EG go through a physical pole shift.

About aliens all of a sudden showing-up in their Motherships, I disagree. I see that the integrity of the veil of ignorance will be kept. God gave Man free will. A large part of this free will is this veil of ignorance (and integrity of such...).
For instance, Hitler was our ´anti-christ´. WW2 was our ´Armageddon´. The third part is the acting-up of mother nature (of which a pole shift would be a part). That I see is what is taking place now (well, kinda like an effect).

You see, I have recently been through things that enable me to have some confidence in what I am saying? Not going into detail.....

But look at alot of these ´predictions´ as worse case scenarios. And, I fully see that there may be those forces that wish bad things to happen. There are good and there are bad. But, much of the doomsday scenarios is that; a scenario. And much of it is like a purge valve; if we did not have all these doomsday scenarios, then some of them may actually happen? To see that think on karma, and see that we (Earthlings) have risen above our karma, and much may be attributed to this doomsday prediction stuff. If we did not have this big threat of Hell or Revelations or other type bad thing to look at, then it may be easier for them to actually happen. This is related to the concept that we go from blind, unknowing love, to knowing love. That, IMHO, is alot of what the story of the garden of Eden is all about (biting the fruit of knowledge, ect.)

One thing to know is that its not that we Earthlings have done wrong.....
Jodido
User ID: 2060
United States
07/28/2005 10:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
About TFT´s mention about computers. The context I would view this in is that Star Trek movie about Ve Ger (the third motion picture?). In it Ve Ger is actually Voyager 1, a probe that we sent out into space in that 60´s. This probe then goes out and absorbs all the infromation (EG about various life forms, their worlds, etc) and then comes back to Earth; to fulfill its mission of bringing back to us what it finds. But, in the meantime, this probe has become as smart as any computer or silicon based intelligence, can become. In the movie Ve Ger merges with a human from the Enterprise; the marraige of silicon based sentiency and carbon based.

Imagine if this actually happened, in a way.

Take, for instance, NL´s 12th planet. Well, the story often goes it is inhabited by the Annunaki. Some say it is even a hollowed out planet (brown dwarf).

What if Man creates the universe, then a ´probe´ collects all we created, for us to then ´absorb´. Kinda like the story, or theory, as fortold in C.S. Lewis´ Chronicle of Narnia (read The Magicians Nephew).

They though a few centuries ago that Earth was flat, and the centewr of the universe. Subsequently, we have found otherwise. But, we they totally wrong? If Earth is the heart of the universe (think of the way hearts work...) then maybe Earth IS the center in a way....

Man being co-creators an all :)
Jodido
User ID: 2060
United States
07/28/2005 10:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
And further evidence of this can be seen in astronomy, together with astrology, and what we hear in channelled material. If all these stars and star systems effect and relate to Earth the way they do, it msy mean thes stars and star systems are supporting Earth. Much like how astrology says that the other planets in this solar system are here basically to help support what is happening on Earth.

In other words; these constellations; were they made to help support Earth, or just picked out after that fact?

BTW, this is just further evidence of my idea that Earth is the heart of this universe (and all that that would mean...).
Cobra

User ID: 17365
Israel
07/28/2005 10:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
blobr
Do not worry , UFO's were/are at each given time all over the place ,only thing is they are invisible to your eyes @_@
King of Cups

User ID: 1190
United States
07/28/2005 01:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4009

YOU SAID–“From the words "Let us make man" we might expect mankind to be created by multiple creators. The word ???????? "let us make" is the 1st person plural (qal future) of the verb ???? (to do, to make). The ?- prefix indicates that it is "us" which seems to imply multiple creators. Similarly, from the words ???????????? ????????????? "in our image after our likeness" we might expect man to be made in the images of multiple individuals. The suffix -??? at the end of each word is the possessive suffix which means "our". We might think that "our" image and "our" likeness refers to multiple individuals with similar characteristics with which mankind was to be endowed. Yet when the creation of mankind actually takes place, in the very next verse, it says, "And (he) Elohim created man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him" ?????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? (Gen 1:27). So man was not created by the multiple "we" but by the single individual Elohim who is termed "He".”

REPLY--So, by this distorted logic, when you quote “in the image of Elohim He created him” you must mean Elohim created only males, because of the word “him” at the end of the sentence. However, the word “man” means “human”. So, Elohim created humans. The plural of “man” is also indicated by the final part of that sentence which you conveniently omitted: “male and female created he them.” Therefore, even though the words “He” and “His” are used, they are no more indicative of a singular person than is the word “man” as used in this sentence. It simply means Elohim in “His” entirety, meaning there were more than one beings considered "god".
King of Cups

User ID: 1190
United States
07/28/2005 01:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
TFT REPLY: The silly activity is being done to distract from the purpose of the thread.

King of Cups RESPONSE– Hmmm. I thought you were appreciative of this so-called “silly activity”–at least that’s what you’ve said many times. And to correct your lie, this isn’t to distract, it’s to counter your unsubstantiated belief that all aliens are demonic. It’s simply my attempt to bring reason and end fear of something no one, including you, fully understands. Your fear-mongering reminds me too much of ignorance which has run rampant in past human history.


TFT–“Hence we see the mini-seminars being given by King of cups.”

King of Cups RESPONSE– They aren’t seminars, I simply provide other information which you purposely attempt to keep from readers. Why are you so fearful of other ideas and beliefs?


TFT–“ He will not start a thread of his own with his beliefs but as a seeker of attention he is most disrepectful to the PURPOSE of the thread.”

King of Cups RESPONSE– If I really wanted attention, I’d start my own thread and claim to have some sort of inside or secret knowledge, as you have. Then, when someone challenges that belief, I would whine about my thread being hijacked, as you have. However, since I don’t seek attention, I haven’t started threads that would create such an atmosphere.

TFT–...”every time he attempts to distract from the meaning of this thread he PROLONGS the thread and is therefore helping to keep the information I present before those who are reading or WILL read this thread. For this I thank him.”

King of Cups RESPONSE– It also provides me with an opportunity to counter your attempt to instill fear in people. I hope people DO read this thread so they can see through your statements.

TFT–“At this point instead of dealing with the major issue about the aliens, he prefers to deal with minor issues such as the meaning of Elohim. What difference does it make to debate over words and yet miss out on eternal life. Surely his mission is to attempt to prevent the information about the alien agenda from being the main issue.”

King of Cups RESPONSE– Actually, the meaning of the word “Elohim” has A LOT TO DO with aliens and it makes a BIG difference in what we believe about what’s happening today. You complain about my introduction of this crucial word into the debate because YOU KNOW it would destroy the foundation of your dogma, and you just can’t have that, can you? It’s way too much of an evolutionary step in thinking to accept, and for others to do so would threaten your religious system of CONTROL. My “mission”, if there is such a thing, would be to try and end the fearful way of thinking, even if only in a small way through an internet forum, that’s dominated our species since time began. Nearly all of our fears are based on false religious presumptions.

TFT– “... you are most correct that the plurality of Elohim only serves to prove the Godhead or trinity aspect of God being the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. The three together are responsible for all creation.”

King of Cups RESPONSE– Again, you are attempting to obfuscate the truth of our being, just as any other good Christian preacher would do. You KNOW what Elohim means, the sense in which it was written in Genesis and the connection with Sumeria and genetic engineering. Wake up, TFT, and come clean with yourself and others.
Jodido
User ID: 11527
United States
07/28/2005 01:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: More Questions about aliens.......
Well, ya know what I want to know? The story. Obviously Earth has been going through alot of stuff that we have become ingorant of. There is much evidence for there beingh some kind of seeding. Like changind us from neanderthal man to homo sapien man. There is also evidence that different forms of man, EG the five races, have either evovled here or came here. One story I read that was very interesting mentioned that many different types of ´human´ have arrived here, in different times, from different places. In this story emphasis was placed on differing huamns being or originating from different densities. Like, the Abraham lines would be from a higher density (than most) hence that would help explain why we have this whole history (it seems) centered around the Jewsih or Hebrew peoples. And it would explain why they have been ´hunted´ by the ´other´ races on Earth; the lower level density races naturally fight against the higher level ones.

In other words, I see a world that has had many differing influences from differing time periods. And I see that as one thing that makes Earth special; we have so much of this differing. Its almost as if we are all here to learn how to get along.

One thing that struck me while reading a thread here of which I forget now, is that statement that we are created beings; being both STS and STO and that we have the ability to make the choice. Knowing what I do about the dual nature of this universe; that rings true. It may be that one reason why ´aliens´ made us was to create this construct.

But, I feel it goes much deeper than that, expescially if we are co-creators with God. In other words, maybe this ´alien´ intervention happened, but for deeper reasons than even the aliens themselves know, hence my referral to them doing God´s will, without knowing it.

News