The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

[Kimoni]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

A bit more in reference to the origin of speech. This a fairly decent link that sheds light on the concept of man beginning to speak. What is more interesting is, as far away as it is from what Mutty and I have presented to you all, if you take into consideration what we have presented, some of the information discussed on the topic of man developing the ability to speak, sounds as if it could be tied into the entire process of the creation of man as recorded by the Sumerians. However, read for yourselves and decide.

http://custance.org/old/earlyman/6ch1.html

[servant]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Well Mutty and Kimoni-Kojo, it has been a wild ride hasn’t it ? And we have you guys to thank. The truth be told, I wasn’t planning to give a wrap up myself as many of the questions I had were seemingly ignored or given short shrift so I figured, “here we go again, why bother”. Which brings me to Mutty’s “There’s Nothing New Under The Sun”.

Well ain’t that the truth !

Fellows, the ‘revelations’ made on this thread are all old hat. Actually, it is ground that has been trod for hundreds of years. And as I said before, being a simple man, far be it from me to go toe to toe with you guys when people more qualified than myself have already done so. So I will only make a few observations.

Having participated in a number of discussions with people who believe that Sumerian creation stories represent historical reality, I have been able to notice a pattern of behavior in those who propose this whenever even simple questions such as the ones I asked are placed on the table. The behavior usually takes one or more of the following forms (and here I identify just a few):

1. A refusal to answer direct questions such as “What is 'the great vessel now orbiting the Earth'? (me).

2. Hinting at dark conspiracies without offering proof of same (“The suppression of the entire topic by the government has severely retarded the academic and scientific communities, an artificial problem”. Mutty)

3. Trashing your beliefs (“From this point on, your beliefs are irrelevant. Nothing of what you believe is relevant…”, “....what theologians put forth as ‘true’, has long been a lie.” K-K)

4. Implying that anyone who questions your theory has a ‘closed’ mind. One of the oldest and most tiresome responses in the book I might add. (“Warning: Those with closed minds are not ready for this information”. K-K)

5. Making references to Bible verses/chapters that allegedly support your claim without actually quoting them in their entirety ( “ This can be found in Genesis 3, Verse 16.” K-K)

6. Refusing to respond when the actual chapter or verse is put out there on the table and it is obvious that it does no such thing. Or saying that you will get “....back to you in providing specific answers to your questions”. Then never do so. (K-K)

7. Imply that those who ask questions about the ‘God as an alien’ theory need to grow up (“Then you start to become older and start to wake up to the "truths" of what they were talking about….” Mutty)

8. Poison the well (“I am well aware that the reasons these theories will not settle well is with the Christian community is because they are embraced by the New Age community, a community that is often scandalized by the Christian community.” Mutty)

9. Misrepresent Christian beliefs (“From the Christian point of view in the Bible, "God" created man to be a servant.” K-K) then triumphantly refute your straw man (“So, this is the story/belief you want us to buy. Ummm, OK and I'll like the Brooklyn Bridge and Time-Share in Alaska with that please”. K-K)

10. Sleight of hand (“…the decision was made to use their very essence, their image or what would be called DNA today, to create this worker”. Mutty). This assumes, for example, that what the Sumerians were talking about and DNA are one and the same thing. An assumption made without a shred of supporting evidence.

11. Comparing apples to oranges (“…to hear a person saying they saw something strange in a canefield with bright lights and beings unlike them moving about is no different than Jacob's vision or Ezekiel's”. Mutty).

Now to be fair, I don’t think either Mutty or K-K necessarily meant anything disrespectful or insulting here. The point is that each and every time I see this ‘God was an alien’ argument, the responses seem to fit this pattern. So who knows, maybe this is an essential part of being able to hold this particular world view.

Additionally , I find the people who are into the whole alien business just as interesting as the belief itself! Here, for example, is a story reprinted from the Skeptical Enquirer about a woman who claims she was abducted by aliens from the Brooklyn Bridge : http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hopkins.html .

But what about a belief in aliens itself. What is this all about anyway ? Here is some interesting speculation: http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/cni1.html

Do these articles fairly represent those who hold to a belief in aliens ? As Mutty said in reference to whether Zeus hurling lightning bolts was any less true than a group of alien beings having some hand in our creation ..... "Maybe and maybe not".

I do not intend to try and defend Christianity in this thread. Suffice it to say, the Christian community has been around for two thousand years and has withstood Sumerian/Egyptian/Babylonian mythology……and more.

But I will say this. When I contemplate the majesty, the power and the mystery of the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ, the idea that we, His creation, were clones of apes and aliens designed to mine the earth for creatures from another planet seems very, well....human.

Or as Kimoni-Kojo would say:

“So, this is the story/belief you want us to buy. Ummm, OK and I'll like the Brooklyn Bridge and Time-Share in Alaska with that please”

Selah.

[Kimoni]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Well Mutty and Kimoni-Kojo, it has been a wild ride hasn’t it ? And we have you guys to thank. The truth be told, I wasn’t planning to give a wrap up myself as many of the questions I had were seemingly ignored or given short shrift so I figured, “here we go again, why bother”. Which brings me to Mutty’s “There’s Nothing New Under The Sun”.

Well ain’t that the truth !

Fellows, the ‘revelations’ made on this thread are all old hat. Actually, it is ground that has been trod for hundreds of years. And as I said before, being a simple man, far be it from me to go toe to toe with you guys when people more qualified than myself have already done so. So I will only make a few observations.

Having participated in a number of discussions with people who believe that Sumerian creation stories represent historical reality, I have been able to notice a pattern of behavior in those who propose this whenever even simple questions such as the ones I asked are placed on the table. The behavior usually takes one or more of the following forms (and here I identify just a few):

1. A refusal to answer direct questions such as “What is 'the great vessel now orbiting the Earth'? (me).

2. Hinting at dark conspiracies without offering proof of same (“The suppression of the entire topic by the government has severely retarded the academic and scientific communities, an artificial problem”. Mutty)

3. Trashing your beliefs (“From this point on, your beliefs are irrelevant. Nothing of what you believe is relevant…”, “....what theologians put forth as ‘true’, has long been a lie.” K-K)

4. Implying that anyone who questions your theory has a ‘closed’ mind. One of the oldest and most tiresome responses in the book I might add. (“Warning: Those with closed minds are not ready for this information”. K-K)

5. Making references to Bible verses/chapters that allegedly support your claim without actually quoting them in their entirety ( “ This can be found in Genesis 3, Verse 16.” K-K)

6. Refusing to respond when the actual chapter or verse is put out there on the table and it is obvious that it does no such thing. Or saying that you will get “....back to you in providing specific answers to your questions”. Then never do so. (K-K)

7. Imply that those who ask questions about the ‘God as an alien’ theory need to grow up (“Then you start to become older and start to wake up to the "truths" of what they were talking about….” Mutty)

8. Poison the well (“I am well aware that the reasons these theories will not settle well is with the Christian community is because they are embraced by the New Age community, a community that is often scandalized by the Christian community.” Mutty)

9. Misrepresent Christian beliefs (“From the Christian point of view in the Bible, "God" created man to be a servant.” K-K) then triumphantly refute your straw man (“So, this is the story/belief you want us to buy. Ummm, OK and I'll like the Brooklyn Bridge and Time-Share in Alaska with that please”. K-K)

10. Sleight of hand (“…the decision was made to use their very essence, their image or what would be called DNA today, to create this worker”. Mutty). This assumes, for example, that what the Sumerians were talking about and DNA are one and the same thing. An assumption made without a shred of supporting evidence.

11. Comparing apples to oranges (“…to hear a person saying they saw something strange in a canefield with bright lights and beings unlike them moving about is no different than Jacob's vision or Ezekiel's”. Mutty).

Now to be fair, I don’t think either Mutty or K-K necessarily meant anything disrespectful or insulting here. The point is that each and every time I see this ‘God was an alien’ argument, the responses seem to fit this pattern. So who knows, maybe this is an essential part of being able to hold this particular world view.

Additionally , I find the people who are into the whole alien business just as interesting as the belief itself! Here, for example, is a story reprinted from the Skeptical Enquirer about a woman who claims she was abducted by aliens from the Brooklyn Bridge : http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hopkins.html .

But what about a belief in aliens itself. What is this all about anyway ? Here is some interesting speculation: http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/cni1.html

Do these articles fairly represent those who hold to a belief in aliens ? As Mutty said in reference to whether Zeus hurling lightning bolts was any less true than a group of alien beings having some hand in our creation ..... "Maybe and maybe not".

I do not intend to try and defend Christianity in this thread. Suffice it to say, the Christian community has been around for two thousand years and has withstood Sumerian/Egyptian/Babylonian mythology……and more.

But I will say this. When I contemplate the majesty, the power and the mystery of the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ, the idea that we, His creation, were clones of apes and aliens designed to mine the earth for creatures from another planet seems very, well....human.

Or as Kimoni-Kojo would say:

“So, this is the story/belief you want us to buy. Ummm, OK and I'll like the Brooklyn Bridge and Time-Share in Alaska with that please”

Selah. [/qb]

Greetings Servant,

I appreciate your observational opinion. Yes, you are correct in stating that I have no intent to offend anyone. I have used humorous sarcasm at times to lighten the mood, however, it has never been with malice nor to "trash". In regards to not answering your questions. I stated to you that I would provide a few of my resources, because to go back and sift through each note and/or page of various books would be arduous, however, given time it can be done. Also as I stated, if providing my resources were not up to par for your expectations, I apologize. In providing the resources I gathered my information from, I was giving you the opportunity to acquire these resources for yourself and have the un-influenced ability to read through them yourself and formulate your own opinions as I have. Again, I appreciate and respect your opinion(s). I am not here to convert anyone to anything, nor to dismantle their foundations. These are simple attempts to help build upon what has already been established. Though you may disagree with what has been presented and dislike the responses to your questions, someone, even if they do not admit, has been enlightened. Everyone is not expected to be of one accord on any subject matter. At the end of the day if you can rest at night with what you believe, then continue to do so, as I will continue to rest with what I believe.

BTW, here are a few of my resources again:

The Book of Enoch
Sumerian History
Northwest Nazarene University
The Apocrypha
The Torah
The Pseudepigrapha
History of Emporer Constantine

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Let me chime in on this one yet again.

Servant, you are indeed correct in that I was not here to slam anyone or beliefs per se. I presented something and I am glad to see the responses I have received so far. The attitude goes both ways. Christians often feel that ANYthing not between Genesis and Revelation is worth a second look or thought and those who prefer to think there is more to the story than what is written between those books feel that Christians are closeminded.

Like I said, for more than half my life I adamantly REFUSED to believe or hear anything else on the matter. Christianity to me was the end all and I judged all other concepts by it. It mattered not to me that I saw glaring holes in stories and others that left me wondering, "what the heck was that one all about?" Even worse were those unappetizing shoved under the rug verses dealing with a seemingly bloodthirsty God. I loaded up on just about every book of apologetics there was. I took note of the verbal gymnatics used to get around some verses or stories. When things did not mesh, I simply said to myself, "oh well, God knows best," or "it's not for me to know anyway."

I have never read a book from Zecharia Sitchi, the one most recognized as bringing these theories into the mainstream. I had my questions in isolation but it was a few books by Graham Hancock that dealt with the POSSIBLE reasons why the human race collectively have certain common stories amongst them is what opened up a wider scope for me. Being a person who had read world religious histories and myths, I could not help but question why just about everywhere I looked, gods were believed to have come down from the stars EVEN in the Hebrew Bible. What was this all about? Did the ancients all huddle together in conference and decide to drum up some off the wall stories just for the fun of it? Did they all have the same collective hallucinations? Ahh..their pagan minds!

I did not have to have them stir my curiosity. Within the very Bible things did not always make sense. It is a great work but there are key points where it shows the hands of some editing to fit a particular view, notably, that of the Jews (whom I am NOT bashing).

Like Kimoni pointed out earlier, the Bible to me is another ancient book recollecting some things that other peoples reported. It helps to fill in pieces of the puzzle and I feel that in great part it teaches great truths and standards of living.

NOTE: I babbled through all of this. Kids were all over me so could not concentrate. Might have to rethink and come again.

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

[QUOTE]Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Hinting at dark conspiracies without offering proof of same (“The suppression of the entire topic by the government has severely retarded the academic and scientific communities, an artificial problem”. Mutty)

RESPONSE: The words were those of Neil Freer but there is widespread belief that our government does not tell us everything.


7. Imply that those who ask questions about the ‘God as an alien’ theory need to grow up (“Then you start to become older and start to wake up to the "truths" of what they were talking about….” Mutty)

RESPONSE: I was not implying that God is an alien. The context in which I said that was strictly in respect to coming of age and coming to an understanding of things that once sounded ridiculous or not worthy of consideration.

8. Poison the well (“I am well aware that the reasons these theories will not settle well is with the Christian community is because they are embraced by the New Age community, a community that is often scandalized by the Christian community.” Mutty)

RESPONSE: Just my observations and experience. I have been on the side poisoning the well too.

10. Sleight of hand (“…the decision was made to use their very essence, their image or what would be called DNA today, to create this worker”. Mutty). This assumes, for example, that what the Sumerians were talking about and DNA are one and the same thing. An assumption made without a shred of supporting evidence.

RESPONSE: You are right about this in part. This comes down to speculation but I fond that there are certain things than can be deduced that could make it a likely possibility.

11. Comparing apples to oranges (“…to hear a person saying they saw something strange in a canefield with bright lights and beings unlike them moving about is no different than Jacob's vision or Ezekiel's”. Mutty).[/qb]

RESPONSE: No, I was comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. As hard as it is to imagine, remove Ezekiel from the biblical text and remove his interpretation that he saw God and just imagine him telling us what he saw. What would we have thought he was talking about and what would we think of his sanity?

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Originally posted by Kimoni-Kojo:

A bit more in reference to the origin of speech. This a fairly decent link that sheds light on the concept of man beginning to speak ...
http://custance.org/old/earlyman/6ch1.html

I read this long paper with interest. I hope that you did also. I was very pleased that he naturally brought up feral children and Helen Keller. I also believe that they are crucial in getting a grip on language, it's effects, and origins.

Towards the end of the paper he quotes Susan Langer, "The problem is so baffling that it is no longer considered respectable." And I have noticed that myself.

However, a couple of years ago a fascinating article was published in the New York Times Mag.

MAGAZINE DESK |:

October 24, 1999, Sunday
A Linguistic Big Bang

By Lawrence Osborne (NYT) 4783 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 6 , Page 84 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Lawrence Osborne article on particular sign language created entirely by Nicaraguan children who were installed at special schools for the deaf after 1979 Sandinista revolution; Spanish-speaking teachers were brought in but with no working teaching strategy, so that schools became unintentional linguistic laboratory illustrating how isolated children teach themselves to communicate; photos; linguist Steven Pinker says result is proof that language acquisition is hard-wired in human brain; American sign-language expert Judy Kegl, contacted by Nicaraguan officials in 1986, explains how she cracked code used by children, mapping out idiom that is rich, complex and striking in its flexibility

These kids, around 250 of them I think, from 6 to 16 were brought in before the teachers arrived, and developed a sign language on their own, that is unique, totally different than any other sign language.

I think that humans are hardwired for language, and that language itself is a meme. When we have the meme of language in our own brains, then and only then does the world come into focus. Before that we are just like the feral men in the Benjamin Lee Whorf article.

The meme of language is growing. More things are named. Many of us spend twenty years or more learning very subtle words, doctors and scientists. All sorts of fields.

Aleins could not have come here and created one man who could talk. He had to be educated to talk.

For that matter no solo god could teach himself to talk either, for someone would have had to have taught him. And not one person either, it would have to be a group, like the deaf children.

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

A few questions:

1. What would you think the purpose be for the Sumerians to "make up" their version of how things occured? Do you give them that much credit to come up with such a complex story?

2. Again, do you realistically feel God was speaking to the other members of the trinity in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7?

3. PLEASE, can someone explain to me why there is a striking difference in the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 between what we have in our bibles today and the older scruptures? For those who may have missed it, here it is again:


King James Version/Masoretic Text:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Revised standard version translation based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage.

4. Why do we find the belief amongst various peoples far removed that beings came down from the heavens in olden times? Why would the Incas of Peru, for example, retain in their collective consciousness a similar belief to that of the Sumerians who existed long before them and separated by thousands of miles?

[servant]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

1. What would you think the purpose be for the Sumerians to "make up" their version of how things occured? Do you give them that much credit to come up with such a complex story?

The same reason Mutty, that all other cultures develop a cosmology. It is inherent in the makeup of human beings to try and understand the world around them. But it hardly follows that because these cosmologies have some thematic elements in common, that those elements therefore represent historical reality. They have similar thematic elements because human beings, despite their geographic and ethnic differences, are more similar than they are different, as the Human Genome Project has proven. Why , therefore , would we not think alike too ? As far as the complexity of the story is concerned, all I can say is....so what ? Have you read the Book of Mormon ? Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard ? The Tibetan Book of the Dead ? Do you think that their undeniable complexities necessarily imply that they represent historical reality too ? As a matter of fact, just to give one example, early Mormons believed that men once lived on the moon. Mormon doctrine also suggested that God lives on a planet called Kolob. BYU astromoners believe that Kolob resides near a star called Kakistocra-99b2, in the Constellation of Cancer. So the Sumerians have nothing on them. As for Scientology, let us not even go there.

2. Again, do you realistically feel God was speaking to the other members of the trinity in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7?

It certainly is one possibility Mutty. It could also represent the magisterial plurality of Elizabethan English or a deliberative plural in which God directs the statement to Himself.

3. PLEASE, can someone explain to me why there is a striking difference in the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 between what we have in our bibles today and the older scriptures? For those who may have missed it, here it is again:


King James Version/Masoretic Text:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Revised standard version translation based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage.

See: http://www.facadenovel.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

4. Why do we find the belief amongst various peoples far removed that beings came down from the heavens in olden times? Why would the Incas of Peru, for example, retain in their collective consciousness a similar belief to that of the Sumerians who existed long before them and separated by thousands of miles?

See answer to question 1.

I was comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. As hard as it is to imagine, remove Ezekiel from the biblical text and remove his interpretation that he saw God and just imagine him telling us what he saw.”

Mutty, it is the fact that you have to “remove Ezekiel from the biblical text” and also “remove his interpretation that he saw God” in order to make this analogy work that makes this comparing apples to oranges. You answered my objection perfectly.

[Guest]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Have you read the Book of Mormon ? Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard ? The Tibetan Book of the Dead ? Do you think that their undeniable complexities necessarily imply that they represent historical reality too ?

Great argument!

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] 1. What would you think the purpose be for the Sumerians to "make up" their version of how things occured? Do you give them that much credit to come up with such a complex story?

The same reason Mutty, that all other cultures develop a cosmology. It is inherent in the makeup of human beings to try and understand the world around them. But it hardly follows that because these cosmologies have some thematic elements in common, that those elements therefore represent historical reality. They have similar thematic elements because human beings, despite their geographic and ethnic differences, are more similar than they are different, as the Human Genome Project has proven. Why , therefore , would we not think alike too ? As far as the complexity of the story is concerned, all I can say is....so what ? Have you read the Book of Mormon ? Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard ? The Tibetan Book of the Dead ? Do you think that their undeniable complexities necessarily imply that they represent historical reality too ? As a matter of fact, just to give one example, early Mormons believed that men once lived on the moon. Mormon doctrine also suggested that God lives on a planet called Kolob. BYU astromoners believe that Kolob resides near a star called Kakistocra-99b2, in the Constellation of Cancer. So the Sumerians have nothing on them. As for Scientology, let us not even go there.

2. Again, do you realistically feel God was speaking to the other members of the trinity in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7?

It certainly is one possibility Mutty. It could also represent the magisterial plurality of Elizabethan English or a deliberative plural in which God directs the statement to Himself.

3. PLEASE, can someone explain to me why there is a striking difference in the translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 between what we have in our bibles today and the older scriptures? For those who may have missed it, here it is again:


King James Version/Masoretic Text:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Revised standard version translation based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage.

See: http://www.facadenovel.com/DT32COOVER.pdf

4. Why do we find the belief amongst various peoples far removed that beings came down from the heavens in olden times? Why would the Incas of Peru, for example, retain in their collective consciousness a similar belief to that of the Sumerians who existed long before them and separated by thousands of miles?

See answer to question 1.

I was comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. As hard as it is to imagine, remove Ezekiel from the biblical text and remove his interpretation that he saw God and just imagine him telling us what he saw.”

Mutty, it is the fact that you have to “remove Ezekiel from the biblical text” and also “remove his interpretation that he saw God” in order to make this analogy work that makes this comparing apples to oranges. You answered my objection perfectly. [/qb]

Well I gather from your response, none of these stories and similarities have any basis. Just baseless fantasies I gather?

I can remember Rollin Calf once using the very same argument to discount a universal Flood as stated in the Bible. When I pressed him to explain why you could find Flood narratives all over the world, he pretty much stated the same thing you stated.

As for Mr. Heiser and his book, he actually teaches that the correct rendering should be "sons of God" and in fact, he believes there is indeed a council of gods (sons of El/God). I just re-read that PDF file last week. Great paper!

Ok, let's leave Elijah right where he is. For those who do not believe in the Bible (or it's God for that matter) like those who do not believe the ancient accounts of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Indians, etc, what would Ezekiel's vision sound like to them? Would it not sound as bizzare, fantastical, and ridiculous. Keep in mind that while some may find the Sumerian account as something hard to believe, some of those same people would find no problems believing a snake actually talked to a woman, an *** spoke to a man, and the sun stood still for a day.

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Double post! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[accepted77]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]
"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Revised standard version translation based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of men, He fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD. For the LORD's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage.

[/qb]

Mutty,

Interesting read - Mr Hieser.

But this raises a lot of questions to your alien creation theory.

Don't you think its time for you to drop Kominio theory?

Lets do some investigative thinking.

If as Heiser argues the MT is altered and the SP and LXX best describes the Duet text, these sons of God are "fallen gods" created by Yahweh himself and are therefore neither omnipresent, nor omniscience as he puts it, devine (in appearence like God) but not deity, hence their knowledge is flawed and their counsel, now their own, having been cut off from the source of all knowledge - the eternal God.

This raises some interesting situations.
If the nations were "given up" to these "gods" for an inheritance, and Isreal alone is the inheritance of the one true God, it follows that only Isreal's account is reliable and all men need to become Isreal to be of the only true God - Salvation is of the Jews.

It also implies from Genesis 6 that the nephelim also were "after the flood" and unless God put an end to these "strange flesh" cravings interbreeding was also after the flood.

Thus you have God's command to the Isrealites to utterly destroy all in the cities of Jericho and all the descendants and also those in the city of Ai as well.

Is this a precaution against demon offspring contaminating the bloodline?.

If it is, the predestination question is answered. Some are born unrepentant and will remain so whatever preaching revelation they recieve.

Futhermore those outside the commonwealth of Isreal except they are born again "spiritual Isreal" they cannot enter the kingdom of God.

However there is still this warning "as it was in the days of Noe so shall the coming of the son of man be, for they were eating and drinking and giving in marriage before the flood..."

So the second judgement of the earth follows the pattern of the first. The marrying in the days of Noe was the going after "strange flesh" interbreeding with angels.

Could this "alien abduction" and homosexual altenative lifestyle be the beginning the "signs in the heavens" the begining of sorrows so to speak?


Man's desire to roam the heavens have always been limited by the pysical laws which governs his lifespan and this physical universe, but what if there are spiritual laws that superseed the physical.

Consider if as the bible prophesies man as a new creation in the new Jerusalem lifespan will one day be everlasting and his body not limited to time and space, then the heavens become his destiny to explore.

This is the promise of the new creation, [b]except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God[/].

The new birth makes us spiritual Isreal the people of God it destroys the curse.

This "alien creation theory" like I said earlier its another "doctrine of men and angels", its not the original, its an ancient twist on truth and it is being used again today as something "new under the sun". Satan is the father of lies, and lies are as old as "ye shall become as gods".

[Mutty]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Accepted, I cannot 'drop' consideration of the theory that easy. Please keep in mind, however, that I do not agree with all things said in the theory's subsequent ideas.

You are overlooking yet another twist to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and that is, Yahweh (the LORD) appears to be a separate entity from the Most High (El Elyon) as read from the older Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint. The reading presents the awkward situation of Yahweh (the Lord, the one who would becomeIsrael's God) appearing to be one amongst the other sons in line to receive a nation to rule over. In this case then, Yahweh would not be the Most High God but a son of the Most High who was given Israel to govern and we see this played out in Exodus when Yahweh appears to Moses which is followed by Yahweh whipping and forging a nameless people into a nation he calls to himself swearing them off from all the other gods (sons) of the other nations.

I will finish up my thoughts later.

[accepted77]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Give me a source for this.

[Kimoni]

Re: The mysterious "us" of Genesis 1:26 and 11:7

Originally posted by accepted:

Don't you think its time for you to drop Kominio theory?

Is this supposed to be me?