Jump to content

Truth About The Watchers


Recommended Posts

 

Brother frankster, in another thread you mentioned the "Watchers":

 

 

Quote


We once were a part of a Galactic civilization(Type II Civilization)...Now we have Watchers overseeing(Enoch)

 

Would you like to know the TRUTH about who these Watchers actually were?

They were BLACK MEN....soldiers stationed to the area of and around the Caucasus Mountain range and the Black Sea.
They were assigned to keep the Caucasians from escaping and coming back into our civilizations.

Some of them saw the Caucasian women as attractive and had sex with them producing mixed offspring.

This is where you get the "sons of god mixing with the daughters of man" in Genesis btw....

You'll find that the Book of Enoch....like most so-called "scriptures" that pass through the hands of Caucasians....is a corrupted forgery based on the original TRUE history of that area that has been long suppressed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Pioneer1 changed the title to Truth About The Watchers
14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Brother frankster, in another thread you mentioned the "Watchers":

 

 

 

Would you like to know the TRUTH about who these Watchers actually were?

They were BLACK MEN....soldiers stationed to the area of and around the Caucasus Mountain range and the Black Sea.
They were assigned to keep the Caucasians from escaping and coming back into our civilizations.

Some of them saw the Caucasian women as attractive and had sex with them producing mixed offspring.

This is where you get the "sons of god mixing with the daughters of man" in Genesis btw....

You'll find that the Book of Enoch....like most so-called "scriptures" that pass through the hands of Caucasians....is a corrupted forgery based on the original TRUE history of that area that has been long suppressed.

Sure tell me what you know  and the support link to the texts that inform you.

Do You have a link to where they were guarding the caucasus Mountains?

As well as that they were black Men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 

 

Though not impossible, it would be difficult to dig up the sources where I got this information from because much of it didn't come from sources online.
The main source of this information comes from a VERY good book known as:

 

Making of The White Man

 

image.png.12ee8c2f8b6fecd472cf602171214b0e.png

 

By author Paul Lawrence Guthrie

This man actually set out to do research to try and PROVE that Elijah Muhammad was wrong about White people being a race of devils, and in the course of his research found out that it was actually TRUE....lol.
Very powerful book with a lot of historic research that helps to clarify a lot of things and explains where a lot of mythology and religious scripture actually came from.

I'd have to go to my storage library dig out some of the books, photo the pages, and then download them on to my computer and then on to this site.....lol.
All of that work....only for you to STILL not be moved on inch and not believe what I said about the Watchers...lol.

So I tell you what, let's start with this............


When you read the Bible, you already know you're reading a TRANSLATION.

So when you read, "The sons of God entered the daughters of man"
This is a MISTRANSLATION....purposefully done.

 

It SHOULD read:
"The sons of the Elohim had sex with the daughters of Adam"

 

The ancient people....original people...who I'm sure we can both agree were Black....claimed to be children of the "gods" or "Deities" whether called Elohim by the Canaanites and Israelites or the Anunnaki by the Sumerians or the Neteru by the Kemites.

These people were Black.

 

Now, Adam is actually symbolic of the first Caucasian/White man.
"Adam" literally means  "to show blood"  or in other words "blusher".


Now do you disagree with anything I've said so far or should I provide links to my above assertions as evidence of them?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy

I'm not sure if it's even still in print....lol.

I've had that book since the 90s.
I bought it at the Shrine of the Black Madonna bookstore in Detroit.

They had so many books by Black authors that are lost or simply not in print anymore.

Ever head of an author named "Rufus Shaw"?
He did a number of GOOD books that were low budget but packed with sound practical advice for Black people and especially Black men in the U.S. on how to be successful.
One was "How to be a Rich Nigga" and another was "Art of Hustling".
If you could get your hands on those, you'll be sitting on top of a gold mine...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now just think about this...........

The SUPREME BEING Knows everything and Sees everything.
The SUPREMBE BEING doesn't need to send Angels or Cherubim or any other Beings down to Earth on top of some mountains to stand around staring at humans and keeping an eye on them.

Even human beings today have technology advanced enough that they can sit in some office in Bethesda Maryland looking up at a flat screen and monitor what's going on around the planet through satellites and drones!

 

 

image.png.f991bc44ea3304361c07193318151178.png


"Now what the hell are those Black fuckers up to down there?
Hey Jared, why don't ya' zoom in and  let's take a look at what's happening down in Haiti".

 


Now come on, if White folks have that kind of technology...
Surely The SUPREME BEING is Infinitely more Powerful!!!


Listen brutha......
You're reading corrupted versions of the truth!
They are forgeries and myths collected from around that area that were based on true stories thousands of years old.

When you read the Book of Enoch and these other books and they talk about Mt Harmon and Mt Carmel and Mt Ararat and mount this and mount that....they're talking about PHYSICAL BEINGS who are on top of these mountains watching OTHER physical beings.

These were Black HUMANS who were stationed on the tops of the Caucasus and other mountain ranges in the Middle East to watch and guard Caucasian human beings who were placed in the Caucasus for punishment!

Just like when you read about the Devil and his angels being kicked out of heaven as punishment; it's a mythical version of the White folks being kicked out of the peaceful lands of the Original people and banished up into the Caucasus mountains as punishement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2023 at 8:55 PM, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 

 

Though not impossible, it would be difficult to dig up the sources where I got this information from because much of it didn't come from sources online.
The main source of this information comes from a VERY good book known as:

 

Making of The White Man

 

image.png.12ee8c2f8b6fecd472cf602171214b0e.png

 

By author Paul Lawrence Guthrie

This man actually set out to do research to try and PROVE that Elijah Muhammad was wrong about White people being a race of devils, and in the course of his research found out that it was actually TRUE....lol.
Very powerful book with a lot of historic research that helps to clarify a lot of things and explains where a lot of mythology and religious scripture actually came from.

I'd have to go to my storage library dig out some of the books, photo the pages, and then download them on to my computer and then on to this site.....lol.
All of that work....only for you to STILL not be moved on inch and not believe what I said about the Watchers...lol.

So I tell you what, let's start with this............

Never Read the book...

Do you know  of any of his source materials?

 

On 5/3/2023 at 8:55 PM, Pioneer1 said:


When you read the Bible, you already know you're reading a TRANSLATION.

So when you read, "The sons of God entered the daughters of man"
This is a MISTRANSLATION....purposefully done.

 

It SHOULD read:
"The sons of the Elohim had sex with the daughters of Adam"

 

The ancient people....original people...who I'm sure we can both agree were Black....claimed to be children of the "gods" or "Deities" whether called Elohim by the Canaanites and Israelites or the Anunnaki by the Sumerians or the Neteru by the Kemites.

These people were Black.

I am not saying I am Right and you Wrong on this point....but I have been led to think the following.

The Anunnaki are Physical biological Beings...

The Neteru are Principles that Operate in our Existence. 

 

The Anunnaki will have color can you say that they were Human and black 

Provide links.

 

On 5/3/2023 at 8:55 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

Now, Adam is actually symbolic of the first Caucasian/White man.
"Adam" literally means  "to show blood"  or in other words "blusher".


Now do you disagree with anything I've said so far or should I provide links to my above assertions as evidence of them?
 

I see Adam as the First  man of our Kind (not just of White men)- Homo sapien sapien...yes Other Men existed.

If Ham is a Descendant of Adam the I am a Descendant of Adam.

 

Yes information is key..... provide any links you have to support your claims

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 

 

Never Read the book...

Do you know  of any of his source materials?

 

I'm sure he has a bibliography in his book and I do remember seeing multiple books he referenced to in the book.
Some of which were:

Quran
Bible
Book of Enoch
Babylonian Talmud
Book of Adam and Eve
Message To The Black Man




I am not saying I am Right and you Wrong on this point....but I have been led to think the following.

The Anunnaki are Physical biological Beings...
 

As do I.
There is no disagreement here.


 


The Neteru are Principles that Operate in our Existence. 
 

Not sure about this.
It's my understanding that "Neter" is simply the Kemetic term for the same superior advanced Beings known by other names such as Anunnaki, Giants, Titans, etc...in other cultures.
Some of the Neteru will be ATTRIBUTED to certain principles and concepts....kind of like a Specialist Doctor will specialize in certain conditions.  But that doesn't mean they ARE the condition they specialize in, it just means they are an expert in it.

 


 

The Anunnaki will have color can you say that they were Human and black 

Provide links.

I can provide evidence of them being advanced humans, but at this time I can not provide evidence that they were Black.

These are the sculptures and pictures done by the ancient Sumerians depicting the Anunnaki:
 

 

image.png.dabf92722a6e104af9461a5f2960afbb.png

 

 

image.png.cc601efbf46a50c19b2d13a04549cdbd.png

 

image.png.a0c69abd1c8a9cc70da7fd6e41d866ca.png

 


They look human to me.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and rather than being human, humans were made to look like THEM 
Outside of that possibility, they look like human beings to me.

It would have to be deductive reasoning that they were Black as White people didn't exist at that time (prior to 6000 years ago) and what other color/race of people existed in that region?
Native Americans and East Asians (yellow man) are the only other actual races that are older than 6000 years (not by much though....lol), however there is little evidence of them dwelling in the Iraq, Iran, Egypt area.  

 

 

 

I see Adam as the First  man of our Kind (not just of White men)- Homo sapien sapien...yes Other Men existed.

 

I'm glad you acknowledge that other men existed before Adam.
What KIND or RACE do you believe these "other men" were who existed before Adam?

 

 

 


If Ham is a Descendant of Adam the I am a Descendant of Adam.

 

So you believe that you are a descendant of Ham?

 

 


 

Yes information is key..... provide any links you have to support your claims

 


Alright, let's take a look at the Hebraic text as well as the transliteration of Genesis Chapter 6, shall we?


Here you have the famous verses describing how the "Sons of God" mixed with the "daughters of man"; but when you read the original text for itself...you actually find a slightly different understanding.
 

 

image.thumb.png.5bd1910009c618ddd38f286382bfac2c.png

 

 

As I said before, "Elohim" doesn't mean "god"......but "gods" PLURAL.
So why did the English translators translate it singularly?
Because this FALSE translation lines up more neatly with their idea of monotheism.

But in truth it should read the sons of the Elohim chose the daughters of Adam (ha adam).
 

And took them as "wives"......spirits don't mix with humans for sex....let alone MARRY them.
These would have to be flesh and blood beings to do this.
 

 

It should also be noted that "Adam" is a symbolic word that actually represents a GROUP of people, not just one individual.

Take a look at the original Hebraic Text along with the Transliteration and how the English translation mis-translates it:

 

 

image.png.b182792b129742459894d45d00d4a8bc.png

 


It says He blessed THEM and called THEIR name "Adam".....not just one person but the entire group.
So when you read the original translation you realize that this is referencing an entire GROUP of people, not just one or two.

This is one of the reasons why the Bible can't be taken literally or as God's word. 
Too much confusion and symbolism in it's language and translation.

 

Now what does ADAM mean and why was this term ascribed to an entire group of people?

Let's look at Strongs Biblical Lexicon

 

 

 

 

:image.thumb.png.9293ca53597d16463db2a15c4d8158c0.png
 

Strongs's #119: 'adam - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

 

 

Adam means to show blood in the face....or to "blush" taken from the root word "DM" meaning "red/blood".

A-dam  SHOW-BLOOD / BLUSH

The only people who show blood or blush in the face are Caucasians or those MIXED with Caucasians.

Adam represents the first White people on our planet and their initial interactions with US....the original people.

Ahhhhh let's get into it brutha.............

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I provided some information for you but it may seem disconnected so let me see if I can summarize it.

I've attempted to prove that:

1. Adam actually represents a GROUP of people who "show blood" in the face or "blush" = White people/Caucasians

2. When the Bible says "the daughters of man" the translation literally means "daughters of Adam"      FEMALE DESCENDANTS OF THOSE CAUCASIANS

3. When the Bible says "sons of God" the translation literally means "sons of the Elohim"   SONS OF MULTIPLE DEITIES

So the Sons of these Deities saw the daughters of the Caucasians, found them attractive and had sex with them.

This is where the Book of Enoch and other texts base their claims of "Watchers" and "Fallen Angels" having sex with humans from.
A MIS-TRANSLATION and MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the original.

It's not about a bunch of spirits with wings floating around snatching up human women and flying off with them, it's about flesh and blood  Beings of color in a position of power who see these Caucasian women and decide to have sex with them.

You have something similar but on a much more minor scale today when Corrections Officers have sex with the inmates and get in trouble for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

Never Read the book...

Do you know  of any of his source materials?

 

I'm sure he has a bibliography in his book and I do remember seeing multiple books he referenced to in the book.
Some of which were:

Quran
Bible
Book of Enoch
Babylonian Talmud
Book of Adam and Eve
Message To The Black Man

Great books

The book of Enoch speaks of the Watchers 

The bible speaks of the sons of God....those I know 

What does the talmud, the book of adam and eve and message to the black man says in regard to these beings?

can you provide a quote?

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I am not saying I am Right and you Wrong on this point....but I have been led to think the following.

The Anunnaki are Physical biological Beings...
 

As do I.
There is no disagreement here

Ok

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

The Neteru are Principles that Operate in our Existence. 
 

Not sure about this.
It's my understanding that "Neter" is simply the Kemetic term for the same superior advanced Beings known by other names such as Anunnaki, Giants, Titans, etc...in other cultures.
Some of the Neteru will be ATTRIBUTED to certain principles and concepts....kind of like a Specialist Doctor will specialize in certain conditions.  But that doesn't mean they ARE the condition they specialize in, it just means they are an expert in it.

NTR/Netjer/Neter or Neteru is Nature and the Divinities are various Forces of or In Nature

The Anunnaki do seem to be Physical beings as the had children with human women called Nephilim.

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 


 

The Anunnaki will have color can you say that they were Human and black 

Provide links.

I can provide evidence of them being advanced humans, but at this time I can not provide evidence that they were Black.

These are the sculptures and pictures done by the ancient Sumerians depicting the Anunnaki:
 

 

image.png.dabf92722a6e104af9461a5f2960afbb.png

 

 

image.png.cc601efbf46a50c19b2d13a04549cdbd.png

 

image.png.a0c69abd1c8a9cc70da7fd6e41d866ca.png

 


They look human to me.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and rather than being human, humans were made to look like THEM 
Outside of that possibility, they look like human beings to me.

It would have to be deductive reasoning that they were Black as White people didn't exist at that time (prior to 6000 years ago) and what other color/race of people existed in that region?
Native Americans and East Asians (yellow man) are the only other actual races that are older than 6000 years (not by much though....lol), however there is little evidence of them dwelling in the Iraq, Iran, Egypt area.  

They Look Humanoid to me.

First off some of them have wings, they all have large  strange eyes and final the One kneeling in what appears to be a Chuppah seems to be in mid air.

 

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

I see Adam as the First  man of our Kind (not just of White men)- Homo sapien sapien...yes Other Men existed.

 

I'm glad you acknowledge that other men existed before Adam.
What KIND or RACE do you believe these "other men" were who existed before Adam?

I Think they were Human beings in all likelihood comprised of varying skin color....Or Hominids.

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

If Ham is a Descendant of Adam the I am a Descendant of Adam.

 

So you believe that you are a descendant of Ham?

Yes I believe we are all descendants of Adam

 

On 5/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

Yes information is key..... provide any links you have to support your claims

 


Alright, let's take a look at the Hebraic text as well as the transliteration of Genesis Chapter 6, shall we?


Here you have the famous verses describing how the "Sons of God" mixed with the "daughters of man"; but when you read the original text for itself...you actually find a slightly different understanding.
 

 

image.thumb.png.5bd1910009c618ddd38f286382bfac2c.png

 

 

As I said before, "Elohim" doesn't mean "god"......but "gods" PLURAL.
So why did the English translators translate it singularly?
Because this FALSE translation lines up more neatly with their idea of monotheism.

But in truth it should read the sons of the Elohim chose the daughters of Adam (ha adam).
 

And took them as "wives"......spirits don't mix with humans for sex....let alone MARRY them.
These would have to be flesh and blood beings to do this.
 

 

It should also be noted that "Adam" is a symbolic word that actually represents a GROUP of people, not just one individual.

Take a look at the original Hebraic Text along with the Transliteration and how the English translation mis-translates it:

 

 

image.png.b182792b129742459894d45d00d4a8bc.png

 


It says He blessed THEM and called THEIR name "Adam".....not just one person but the entire group.
So when you read the original translation you realize that this is referencing an entire GROUP of people, not just one or two.

This is one of the reasons why the Bible can't be taken literally or as God's word. 
Too much confusion and symbolism in it's language and translation.

 

Now what does ADAM mean and why was this term ascribed to an entire group of people?

Let's look at Strongs Biblical Lexicon

 

 

 

 

:image.thumb.png.9293ca53597d16463db2a15c4d8158c0.png
 

Strongs's #119: 'adam - Greek/Hebrew Definitions - Bible Tools

 

 

Adam means to show blood in the face....or to "blush" taken from the root word "DM" meaning "red/blood".

A-dam  SHOW-BLOOD / BLUSH

The only people who show blood or blush in the face are Caucasians or those MIXED with Caucasians.

Adam represents the first White people on our planet and their initial interactions with US....the original people.

Ahhhhh let's get into it brutha.............

 

We have had this discussion before in which I showed you that all human beings blush and show blood.

Lamentations 4:7 is speaking about Nazarites who are Israelites of the Vow of Consecration in Service to God.

 

The theory that white people was a creation first came to me as they were descendants of Gehazi, the accursed servant of Elisha.

Then Descendants of Laban the Albino

Now creation of Yakub on the Isle of Patmos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I provided some information for you but it may seem disconnected so let me see if I can summarize it.

I've attempted to prove that:

1. Adam actually represents a GROUP of people who "show blood" in the face or "blush" = White people/Caucasians

We agree..... except on that it was only white people.

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

2. When the Bible says "the daughters of man" the translation literally means "daughters of Adam"      FEMALE DESCENDANTS OF THOSE CAUCASIANS

Again we....except on the point of they only being Caucasian Women

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

3. When the Bible says "sons of God" the translation literally means "sons of the Elohim"   SONS OF MULTIPLE DEITIES

We concur

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

So the Sons of these Deities saw the daughters of the Caucasians, found them attractive and had sex with them.

This is where the Book of Enoch and other texts base their claims of "Watchers" and "Fallen Angels" having sex with humans from.
A MIS-TRANSLATION and MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the original.

We Agree....except for daughters of Caucasians exclusively.

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

It's not about a bunch of spirits with wings floating around snatching up human women and flying off with them, it's about flesh and blood  Beings of color in a position of power who see these Caucasian women and decide to have sex with them.

In the Picture you provide as of the Anunnaki/Watchers/Fallen Angel some of them definitely had wings and one was even floating in mid air???

I at no time said the Anunnaki were Spirits.

You have yet to show me how you arrive at the color of the Anunnaki?

I know how you arrive at the color of Adam and caucasian, though we continue to disagree on that .

 

On 5/14/2023 at 10:43 AM, Pioneer1 said:

You have something similar but on a much more minor scale today when Corrections Officers have sex with the inmates and get in trouble for it.

I can see the similarity....though it be a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 

 

NTR/Netjer/Neter or Neteru is Nature and the Divinities are various Forces of or In Nature

 

Are the Neteru the same as Nature, or was the English term "nature" TAKEN from the Kemetic term "Neteru"?

 

 

 

 

The Anunnaki do seem to be Physical beings as the had children with human women called Nephilim.


The mistake many Christians often make is in calling the offspring between the "sons of gods" and the "daughter of Adam" -Nephilim.

The word "Nephilim" is a plural term (a term that used to be translated as "giants") is actually the Hebrew term for the sons of gods themselves; not their offspring.

Their OFFSPRING with humans were called offspring were called the "Gibborim" .

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.e1c794ac90c68588332655c17eef14ae.png

 

 

Nephilim = Sons of the Elohim
Gibborim = Children of the (Nephilim + Adamic women)

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off some of them have wings, they all have large  strange eyes and final the One kneeling in what appears to be a Chuppah seems to be in mid air.

When studying ancient art and heiroglyphics whether it be found in Kemet or Babylon or Canaan....it's understood by many scholars that wings being depicted on a person or object doesn't necessarily mean they actually HAVE wings.....it simply means they possess the ability to FLY and the artist wants to convey that message.

For example:

The ancient Perian Deity Ahura Mazda is often depicted traveling on a disc or globe with wings.



image.png.3d355c024b8eebeb7aaa260753a1e6ca.png


This wasn't to convince you that this inanimate object in which He rode on had wings and feathers, but that it could fly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I believe we are all descendants of Adam

Really......interesting.

In Genesis Chapter 4 we read:

 

image.png.cf996f6b47152aecc2cc9260f1de90e1.png

 

 

When I read these passages, three questions immediately come to mind:


1. If we all came from Adam.....and Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the ONLY people on the planet....where did Cain find his WIFE?
 

2. If there were only 4 (now 3) people on the planet, who were the "everyone" Cain was worried about being killed by?

3. They said Cain got a wife and built a city.
It takes many people to live in a city.
Where did all of these people come from all of a sudden when there was only Adam, Eve, Cain, and his wife??????

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 

 

NTR/Netjer/Neter or Neteru is Nature and the Divinities are various Forces of or In Nature

 

Are the Neteru the same as Nature, or was the English term "nature" TAKEN from the Kemetic term "Neteru"?

I do believe so

 

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

The Anunnaki do seem to be Physical beings as the had children with human women called Nephilim.


The mistake many Christians often make is in calling the offspring between the "sons of gods" and the "daughter of Adam" -Nephilim.

The word "Nephilim" is a plural term (a term that used to be translated as "giants") is actually the Hebrew term for the sons of gods themselves; not their offspring.

Their OFFSPRING with humans were called offspring were called the "Gibborim" .

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.e1c794ac90c68588332655c17eef14ae.png

 

 

Nephilim = Sons of the Elohim
Gibborim = Children of the (Nephilim + Adamic women)

We will have to agree to disagree on whether Nephilim is just another Name for Anunnaki or what their hybrid children were called.

 

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

First off some of them have wings, they all have large  strange eyes and final the One kneeling in what appears to be a Chuppah seems to be in mid air.

When studying ancient art and heiroglyphics whether it be found in Kemet or Babylon or Canaan....it's understood by many scholars that wings being depicted on a person or object doesn't necessarily mean they actually HAVE wings.....it simply means they possess the ability to FLY and the artist wants to convey that message.

All I did was to point out your inaccuracy

Exactly you was the one who said - "It's not about a bunch of spirits with wings floating around snatching up human women and flying off with them," All I did was to point out your inaccuracy.

Their Knowledge of flight does not mean they did not have wings whether it be biological mechanical or biomechanical ......they had wings

The one in Mid air had no wings yet he was flying or levitating....the ones with wings feet where on the ground .

 

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 


For example:

The ancient Perian Deity Ahura Mazda is often depicted traveling on a disc or globe with wings.



image.png.3d355c024b8eebeb7aaa260753a1e6ca.png


This wasn't to convince you that this inanimate object in which He rode on had wings and feathers, but that it could fly.

Yes it looks like he is in a Vimana....please note the differences too - these wings are appear different to the ones seen in the first set of pictures.

 

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I believe we are all descendants of Adam

Really......interesting.

In Genesis Chapter 4 we read:

 

image.png.cf996f6b47152aecc2cc9260f1de90e1.png

 

 

When I read these passages, three questions immediately come to mind:


1. If we all came from Adam.....and Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the ONLY people on the planet....where did Cain find his WIFE?
 

2. If there were only 4 (now 3) people on the planet, who were the "everyone" Cain was worried about being killed by?

3. They said Cain got a wife and built a city.
It takes many people to live in a city.
Where did all of these people come from all of a sudden when there was only Adam, Eve, Cain, and his wife??????

They are many possible answers..I never said Adam and eve etc were the only people on the Planet

First I already stated that Adam was not the only Man....He was probable the first Homo sapien sapien

We both agree that the Anunnaki and the Nephilim were around too....lets not forget the Igigi - last but not least so called wild Men - Hominids

 

 

35 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 



 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 

 

Exactly you was the one who said - "It's not about a bunch of spirits with wings floating around snatching up human women and flying off with them," All I did was to point out your inaccuracy.
 

Ok, and how did you?

It's STILL not about a bunch of spirits with wings...because spirits DON'T NEED wings.

Wings are organs of flight for a PHYSICAL world....spirits fly without wings or planes or anything esle physical.




Their Knowledge of flight does not mean they did not have wings whether it be biological mechanical or biomechanical ......they had wings
 

Ok.
I won't argue it because I wasn't around to see what they had one way or the other.
However I do know wings are often depicted on rather wing-less beings, simply to express their skill at floating and flying and defying the laws of gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it looks like he is in a Vimana.

 

Oh, so you know about the Vimanas?
The vehicles the "gods" of Hinduism used to travel around in.

If you read the Old Testament you'll read about "clouds" in the sky and Beings that travel in "clouds". 
This was probably a mistranslation of those same type of vehicles that the Hebrews witnessed flying around in the air.

 

 

 

 

 

lets not forget the Igigi - last but not least so called wild Men 

 

Wild men?

Are you sure you're not talking about Enkidu the mythological "wild man" of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
....which really symbolized the encounters of the wild Caucasian when he was still in the mountains.

 

Red, hairy all over, and wild as hell....lol


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Exactly you was the one who said - "It's not about a bunch of spirits with wings floating around snatching up human women and flying off with them," All I did was to point out your inaccuracy.
 

Ok, and how did you?

It's STILL not about a bunch of spirits with wings...because spirits DON'T NEED wings.

Wings are organs of flight for a PHYSICAL world....spirits fly without wings or planes or anything esle physical.

That's the point ......I do not think the Anunnaki are Spirits.

 

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Their Knowledge of flight does not mean they did not have wings whether it be biological mechanical or biomechanical ......they had wings
 

Ok.
I won't argue it because I wasn't around to see what they had one way or the other.
However I do know wings are often depicted on rather wing-less beings, simply to express their skill at floating and flying and defying the laws of gravity.

True

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Yes it looks like he is in a Vimana.

 

Oh, so you know about the Vimanas?
The vehicles the "gods" of Hinduism used to travel around in.

If you read the Old Testament you'll read about "clouds" in the sky and Beings that travel in "clouds". 
This was probably a mistranslation of those same type of vehicles that the Hebrews witnessed flying around in the air.

Yes.

Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah.

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

lets not forget the Igigi - last but not least so called wild Men 

 

Wild men?

Are you sure you're not talking about Enkidu the mythological "wild man" of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
....which really symbolized the encounters of the wild Caucasian when he was still in the mountains.

 

Red, hairy all over, and wild as hell....lol

The Igigi and the Anunnaki it is believed both came from Nibiru.....Enkidu the Wild man was a Earthling.

Gilgamesh is a hybrid.

How did you come by the "Red, hairy all over" ....Esau was said to be red and hairy does that make Jacob(Israel) his brother Gilgamesh??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 


Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah.

 

Are you sure "Jah" is his name?

The letter "J" isn't very old.

 

It's my understanding the main "God" of the Israelites was YHWH, also known as Yahweh, or Yahoowah.

 

 

 


Gilgamesh is a hybrid.

 

When you read about Gilgamesh and other figures in ancient stories being "half god and half man" or "half immortal and half mortal".....it's often talking about MIXED RACE people.
People who are half Original/Black and half White.

 

This Sumerian story of a "half-god" Gilgamesh is similar but more detailed than the story in Genesis about the "sons of God" mixing with the "daughters of man" producing "Mighty Ones" and men of Renown.

 

It should be noted that the book of Genesis was written in Babylon and that land used to be ruled by the Sumerians.  No doubt much of their culture and legends were passed down to the Assyrians who established the Babylonian empire.

 

 

 

 


How did you come by the "Red, hairy all over" ....Esau was said to be red and hairy does that make Jacob(Israel) his brother Gilgamesh??

 

It was made clear in the Epic of Gilgamesh that he was hairy all over like an animal.  I've only red a few sources that described his hair as red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah.

 

Are you sure "Jah" is his name?

The letter "J" isn't very old.

 

It's my understanding the main "God" of the Israelites was YHWH, also known as Yahweh, or Yahoowah.

In the KJV of the Bible that is the spelling used...

Yes the letter "j" is said to be a young letter....but is the sound it represent also young????

 

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Gilgamesh is a hybrid.

 

When you read about Gilgamesh and other figures in ancient stories being "half god and half man" or "half immortal and half mortal".....it's often talking about MIXED RACE people.
People who are half Original/Black and half White.

I have yet to ascertain the nature of the Hybridism....Mixing

You are saying it is a mixture of black and white peoples

We are Spiritually Immortal but physically mortal....

The quest is physical immortal....only achieved by a relative few

More achieved immortality through either Transmigration/Avatar or Remembering Self/Personality throughout rebirths/incarnations.

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

This Sumerian story of a "half-god" Gilgamesh is similar but more detailed than the story in Genesis about the "sons of God" mixing with the "daughters of man" producing "Mighty Ones" and men of Renown.

True

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It should be noted that the book of Genesis was written in Babylon and that land used to be ruled by the Sumerians.  No doubt much of their culture and legends were passed down to the Assyrians who established the Babylonian empire.

True

Not sure about where it was written but agree it was probably taken from Sumerian Mythology

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How did you come by the "Red, hairy all over" ....Esau was said to be red and hairy does that make Jacob(Israel) his brother Gilgamesh??

 

It was made clear in the Epic of Gilgamesh that he was hairy all over like an animal.  I've only red a few sources that described his hair as red.

It is believed most hominids were hairy....and of course maybe a few were red - link me the source if possible about the "red"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 


In the KJV of the Bible that is the spelling used...

Yes the letter "j" is said to be a young letter....but is the sound it represent also young????

 

I don't believe so.
I believe all of the SOUNDS that exist today, existed in the past, you that could be a good point.

 

However the question is WAS the name YHWH pronounced with a "J" or "Y" sound?

Most Jewish scholars claim the "Y" sound.
While some Christian scholars decided to go with the "J" sound and most have since backed away from it.

The majority of those what I've encountered so far insisting on still using the "J" sound are BLACK people like Jamaicans and some Hebrew Israelites who haven't really studied the Bible in it's original translations or haven't done much scholarly work and are basing their beliefs on corrupted and mistranslated and long abandoned references from White authorities.

 

Evidence points to THEM being the ones who started this business about YHWH being called "Jehovah" and have now realized their mistake and walked away from it for the most part....but some Black folks still want to hold on to it.

 

 

 

 


I have yet to ascertain the nature of the Hybridism....Mixing

You are saying it is a mixture of black and white peoples

We are Spiritually Immortal but physically mortal....


Yes, exactly.
Which lends more credibility to my assertion that this "mixing" wasn't between Spiritual Beings and humans...but between flesh and blood humans of different races.

ALL humans are Spirits housed in flesh and blood bodies...not just Gilgamesh and a few in ancient times.
So if the Spirit/Flesh mix is what they were referring too...he would be no different than any other human being.

Like I said, in my opinion the "mix" is between two different groups of PHYSICAL BEINGS.
Races....in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

The quest is physical immortal....only achieved by a relative few

More achieved immortality through either Transmigration/Avatar or Remembering Self/Personality throughout rebirths/incarnations.

 

I'm not sure.
However my question is, do you really WANT to remain in the same body forever?

 

Who wants to be stuck with the same car for 20 years when NEW more improved models are coming out every year?

In this world, there is always room for improvement.
No matter how wonderful you think your body is now...perhaps you may see or even develop one much more superior to the one you currently possess and transport your Soul into that one.

 

 

 


It is believed most hominids were hairy.

This entire business about hominids and cavemen and neanderthals is just different names and titles for White men who DEVOLVED and turned savage while they were stuck up in the mountains of the Caucasus.

 

There is no history of Native Americans, Asians, or Africans of PURE BLOOD being "hairy".
The only time they get hairy is if they're mixed with Caucasians somewhere down the line.

They may grow beards, but as far as having hairy chests, bellies, backs, arms, and legs....it's very very rare to find PURE Africans, Native Americans, and Asians who are hairy.

If you find them, chances are it comes from some White genetics.


White people used to be smooth also UNTIL they were banished to the caves and mountains of the Caucasus where they went wild and grew hair all over their bodies from thousands of years of being exposed to the elements, as well as eating raw meat, having sex with family and animals, and engaging in a lot of other savage and gross behavior.

They DE-VOLVED instead of E-VOLVED....another reason for the term "devil".  

DEVILUTION.....lol.



If you haven't....I suggest you watch the movie QUEST FOR FIRE to give you some insight on how White folks really lived in the past.


John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: The Films of  1982 (From the Archive): Quest for Fire

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

frankster

When you get a chance, check out this video of Paul Wallis discussing much of the information I found out about the Bible and the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews:

 



I don't agree with everything he says but he does hit on a lot of good points that I've discovered when I did my research on the Bible and ancient Sumerian/Canaanite studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 


In the KJV of the Bible that is the spelling used...

Yes the letter "j" is said to be a young letter....but is the sound it represent also young????

 

I don't believe so.

 

Psalm 68:4

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:


I believe all of the SOUNDS that exist today, existed in the past, you that could be a good point.

 

However the question is WAS the name YHWH pronounced with a "J" or "Y" sound?

Most Jewish scholars claim the "Y" sound.
While some Christian scholars decided to go with the "J" sound and most have since backed away from it.

The majority of those what I've encountered so far insisting on still using the "J" sound are BLACK people like Jamaicans and some Hebrew Israelites who haven't really studied the Bible in it's original translations or haven't done much scholarly work and are basing their beliefs on corrupted and mistranslated and long abandoned references from White authorities.

True...

I do not think the reason for their continued use is based on the mistranslation you mentioned.....The Mistranslation is real and they know it.

There is a hidden and unpronounceable Name of God....It is "Jah" they say not "Jeh" as in Jehovah.

 

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Evidence points to THEM being the ones who started this business about YHWH being called "Jehovah" and have now realized their mistake and walked away from it for the most part....but some Black folks still want to hold on to it.

True.

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I have yet to ascertain the nature of the Hybridism....Mixing

You are saying it is a mixture of black and white peoples

We are Spiritually Immortal but physically mortal....


Yes, exactly.
Which lends more credibility to my assertion that this "mixing" wasn't between Spiritual Beings and humans...but between flesh and blood humans of different races.

Yes....the mixing was or is not between spiritual and physical but....... between physical and physical.

Let me be clear the Neteru are Spiritual Forces......The Anunnaki are Physical Beings.

Is Yahweh/Jehovah a Neteru Nature(Force of Nature) or Anunnaki (Physical Beings) ?

The Anunnaki created human hybrid of themselves.....Adam - homosapiens sapiens

The Anunnaki intermingled with humans having Nephilim(you disputed).

 

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

ALL humans are Spirits housed in flesh and blood bodies...not just Gilgamesh and a few in ancient times.

 

Yes

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

So if the Spirit/Flesh mix is what they were referring too...he would be no different than any other human being.

Gilgamesh was part God...so he was not just any other human being....He lacked Immortality

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Like I said, in my opinion the "mix" is between two different groups of PHYSICAL BEINGS.
Races....in my opinion.

Yes

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The quest is physical immortal....only achieved by a relative few

More achieved immortality through either Transmigration/Avatar or Remembering Self/Personality throughout rebirths/incarnations.

 

I'm not sure.
However my question is, do you really WANT to remain in the same body forever?

Who wants to be stuck with the same car for 20 years when NEW more improved models are coming out every year?

In this world, there is always room for improvement.
No matter how wonderful you think your body is now...perhaps you may see or even develop one much more superior to the one you currently possess and transport your Soul into that one.

If the Gods covet physical immortality...then it must have its reward.....None wanted to be trapped in endless cycles of Rebirth for millennium/s

 

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

It is believed most hominids were hairy.

This entire business about hominids and cavemen and neanderthals is just different names and titles for White men who DEVOLVED and turned savage while they were stuck up in the mountains of the Caucasus.

How does this align with the story of Yakub on the Isle of Patmos?

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

There is no history of Native Americans, Asians, or Africans of PURE BLOOD being "hairy".
The only time they get hairy is if they're mixed with Caucasians somewhere down the line.

They may grow beards, but as far as having hairy chests, bellies, backs, arms, and legs....it's very very rare to find PURE Africans, Native Americans, and Asians who are hairy.

If you find them, chances are it comes from some White genetics.

Hairy or not  is mostly due to Environment...diet and climate

 

53 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

White people used to be smooth also UNTIL they were banished to the caves and mountains of the Caucasus where they went wild and grew hair all over their bodies from thousands of years of being exposed to the elements, as well as eating raw meat, having sex with family and animals, and engaging in a lot of other savage and gross behavior.

They DE-VOLVED instead of E-VOLVED....another reason for the term "devil".  

DEVILUTION.....lol.



If you haven't....I suggest you watch the movie QUEST FOR FIRE to give you some insight on how White folks really lived in the past.


John Kenneth Muir's Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV: The Films of  1982 (From the Archive): Quest for Fire

Great Movie.

40 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

frankster

When you get a chance, check out this video of Paul Wallis discussing much of the information I found out about the Bible and the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews:

 



I don't agree with everything he says but he does hit on a lot of good points that I've discovered when I did my research on the Bible and ancient Sumerian/Canaanite studies.

I just ask you that question....will watch video soon

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 

 

Psalm 68:4


Now....I'm gonna show you something.
And you're gonna see why the Bible is so deceptive.

In the KJV, Pslam 68: 4 reads:

image.png.8a0c33d43c4b51689e21a73d043083e1.png


But in the original Hebrew Torah and literal transliteration that very SAME scripture reads:

image.png.91a1d14a66bae78255683442fbba2ecd.png


In the original Hebrew the word is clearly pronounced as "Yah" but in the King James Version they pronounce it "Jah" with a "J".
In the original Hebrew they say He rides on the clouds, but in the King James Version they translate it as "heavens".

 


Jah is NOT pronounced the same as Yah so they CAN'T be the same name.
Clouds are NOT the same as Heavens.


Now either ONE of those translations is correct or the OTHER is correct, right?
I'm not a Biblical Theologian and even I can easily see that one of those translations is deceptively incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 


There is a hidden and unpronounceable Name of God....It is "Jah" they say not "Jeh" as in Jehovah.

 

Well if it's hidden and unpronounceable, how did YOU and others find out about it and why was it written down and allowed to be discussed among Biblical theologians and scholars?


Also, if "Jah" is the name then were those pronouncing it as "Yah" all of these years in error?

 

 

 

 

 

Is Yahweh/Jehovah a Neteru Nature(Force of Nature) or Anunnaki (Physical Beings) ?

 

Well as far as what "Group of Beings" He belonged to, according the the scripture He is an Eloh....One of the Elohim (plural).
Again, let's look at the original Hebrew Torah....

image.png.a473c73d3a85f9eabbf4aa62c8d7fae6.png
 

 

So according to the LITERAL translation of the Torah, Yahweh tells the Israelites that He is THEIR  Eloh, and is named Yahweh.
Eloh (singular)
Elohim (plural).

Are the Elohim the same as the Anunnaki?
I'm not sure.
But they were/are clearly Powerful Beings and according to scripture Yahweh is One.



Now, to the question is Yahweh physical?

Well, according to the scripture I provided above, the original Hebrew Torah says that Yah rides in the clouds.

Spirits don't ride in clouds, they go where they want without physical assistance.

Also, in Exodus Chapter 13:21 of the original Hebrew Torah we find:

image.png.3c84933df98951b8879d05e7756c425c.png

it says Yahweh traveled IN a pillar of cloud by day to lead the Children of Israel

Again, I'm not sure why a NON-physical Being would travel inside that which IS physical.


According to Genesis when Lord Yahweh visited Abraham....Abraham saw a MAN with other men.
Physical Being....not a spirit.



The Anunnaki created human hybrid of themselves.....Adam - homosapiens sapiens

Or could this be a Western MIS-INTERPRETATION of ancient Sumerian writings?
Instead of being all spooky with spirits and space aliens as many Western scholars may suggest....could it be that the Anunnaki were just advanced PEOPLE (Black people?) who made White folks (Adamites) from themselves through a certain selective breeding process?
 

 

 

Gilgamesh was part God...so he was not just any other human being....He lacked Immortality

Again, more assumptions based on Western translations of ancient Sumerian text.
"God" is an English word...not a Sumerian one.
So I'm curious as to what word they ACTUALLY used to describe Gilgamesh being "half" of.

As we said, all humans are a mix of Spirit and flesh so they couldn't be talking about that.

In order to be "half human" you would likely be half some other PHYSICAL being.
Spirits don't go "half" on a body.
 

 

 

 


How does this align with the story of Yakub on the Isle of Patmos?

It doesn't.
The Yakub Theory takes place hundreds of years earlier and involves the very process of MAKING the White race.
This story of Enkidu symbolizes one man's encounter with them after they were driven into the wilderness and went wild themselves.

It should be noted also that the Caucasian didn't start off wild and savage.
He started off civilized through culture and knowledge passed directly down from his Black ancestors during the breeding process in Atlantis/Patmos.

Research the Minoan Civilization and how advanced it was.

 

 

image.png.cb0b1b66ea194527c9f18c68b6683dda.png



He didn't go savage until much later on after being driven out of Eden (Africa) into the mountains of Eurasia.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 

 

Psalm 68:4


Now....I'm gonna show you something.
And you're gonna see why the Bible is so deceptive.

In the KJV, Pslam 68: 4 reads:

image.png.8a0c33d43c4b51689e21a73d043083e1.png


But in the original Hebrew Torah and literal transliteration that very SAME scripture reads:

image.png.91a1d14a66bae78255683442fbba2ecd.png


In the original Hebrew the word is clearly pronounced as "Yah" but in the King James Version they pronounce it "Jah" with a "J".
In the original Hebrew they say He rides on the clouds, but in the King James Version they translate it as "heavens".

 


Jah is NOT pronounced the same as Yah so they CAN'T be the same name.
Clouds are NOT the same as Heavens.


Now either ONE of those translations is correct or the OTHER is correct, right?
I'm not a Biblical Theologian and even I can easily see that one of those translations is deceptively incorrect.

 

The Truth is always hidden i n plain sight....

Remember it was the Hebrew duty to hide the actual true pronunciation of the Name of God....If a mistranslation but a part of the true enunciation out there how do The Hebrew confront it?

Clouds are in Heaven - sky

Clouds are meant to Confound.

Heavens is Mental

 

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

There is a hidden and unpronounceable Name of God....It is "Jah" they say not "Jeh" as in Jehovah.

 

Well if it's hidden and unpronounceable, how did YOU and others find out about it and why was it written down and allowed to be discussed among Biblical theologians and scholars?


Also, if "Jah" is the name then were those pronouncing it as "Yah" all of these years in error?

The Information that the actual name of  God is Hidden  is Known.....The Actual Name is still not in the public domain hence Hidden - Amen

At this level it's not about right or wrong(error)....it's about Power - The actual Name of God is the beginning of Power.

It is believed Jesus Learnt it from the Nazarenes(Essene) in Egypt a sect to which he and John The Baptist belong....Therapeutae

All I  know and its has been known for time now....is that it is passed on among a Chosen Few - yet kept in plain view

 

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Is Yahweh/Jehovah a Neteru Nature(Force of Nature) or Anunnaki (Physical Beings) ?

 

Well as far as what "Group of Beings" He belonged to, according the the scripture He is an Eloh....One of the Elohim (plural).
Again, let's look at the original Hebrew Torah....

image.png.a473c73d3a85f9eabbf4aa62c8d7fae6.png
 

 

So according to the LITERAL translation of the Torah, Yahweh tells the Israelites that He is THEIR  Eloh, and is named Yahweh.
Eloh (singular)
Elohim (plural).

Are the Elohim the same as the Anunnaki?
I'm not sure.
But they were/are clearly Powerful Beings and according to scripture Yahweh is One.



Now, to the question is Yahweh physical?

Well, according to the scripture I provided above, the original Hebrew Torah says that Yah rides in the clouds.

Spirits don't ride in clouds, they go where they want without physical assistance.

Also, in Exodus Chapter 13:21 of the original Hebrew Torah we find:

image.png.3c84933df98951b8879d05e7756c425c.png

it says Yahweh traveled IN a pillar of cloud by day to lead the Children of Israel

Again, I'm not sure why a NON-physical Being would travel inside that which IS physical.


According to Genesis when Lord Yahweh visited Abraham....Abraham saw a MAN with other men.
Physical Being....not a spirit.

So if Yahweh is a Physical being then he is not a Neteru

Yahweh is a Member of the Elohim....are they the same as the Anunnaki.

If they are then my guess is that the Elohim is the Name of members of the Ruling Council or High Ranking Officers

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Anunnaki created human hybrid of themselves.....Adam - homosapiens sapiens

Or could this be a Western MIS-INTERPRETATION of ancient Sumerian writings?
Instead of being all spooky with spirits and space aliens as many Western scholars may suggest....could it be that the Anunnaki were just advanced PEOPLE (Black people?) who made White folks (Adamites) from themselves through a certain selective breeding process?

Could be.....Then what Happened to the advance black people?

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Gilgamesh was part God...so he was not just any other human being....He lacked Immortality

Again, more assumptions based on Western translations of ancient Sumerian text.
"God" is an English word...not a Sumerian one.
So I'm curious as to what word they ACTUALLY used to describe Gilgamesh being "half" of.

As we said, all humans are a mix of Spirit and flesh so they couldn't be talking about that.

In order to be "half human" you would likely be half some other PHYSICAL being.
Spirits don't go "half" on a body.

He was "part" of something that was not human.....Anunnaki.

In today's vernacular we interpret that to be God

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How does this align with the story of Yakub on the Isle of Patmos?

It doesn't.
The Yakub Theory takes place hundreds of years earlier and involves the very process of MAKING the White race.
This story of Enkidu symbolizes one man's encounter with them after they were driven into the wilderness and went wild themselves.

It should be noted also that the Caucasian didn't start off wild and savage.
He started off civilized through culture and knowledge passed directly down from his Black ancestors during the breeding process in Atlantis/Patmos.

Research the Minoan Civilization and how advanced it was.

 

 

image.png.cb0b1b66ea194527c9f18c68b6683dda.png



He didn't go savage until much later on after being driven out of Eden (Africa) into the mountains of Eurasia.
 

Mixture of Humans and Anunnaki results in Giants.

Black people and white people mixing do not result in Giants....how do you answer that

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


frankster

 


The Truth is always hidden i n plain sight....

Remember it was the Hebrew duty to hide the actual true pronunciation of the Name of God....If a mistranslation but a part of the true enunciation out there how do The Hebrew confront it?


First of all WHICH "God" are you talking about?
There are many in scripture.
Based on my research the Highest God in the Bible is called "El".

 

Second, if it were their duty to hide the name, why did they put it in their scriptures?

And if the name in their scriptures was NOT the actual name but a purposeful "mistranslation" in order to conceal (there's that word again...lol) the true name...which you claim is "Jah"...then why is it NOW revealed at this time?
 

If they were supposed to conceal it back then, they are supposed to conceal it now.

 

 

 

 

Clouds are in Heaven - sky

 

Ok???
And what does THIS have to do with the fact and dilemma that you have two CLEARLY different English translations of the same Hebrew words?

Again, both of them can't be correct.


Heaven is NOT the same as clouds any more than waves are the same as the ocean.

 

 

 

 

Clouds are meant to Confound.

 

....yeah and that ain't the only thing that was meant to confound, lol.

 

 

 

 

The Information that the actual name of  God is Hidden  is Known.....The Actual Name is still not in the public domain hence Hidden - Amen

 

Are you saying the word "Jah" isn't it either?

 

 

 


At this level it's not about right or wrong(error)....it's about Power - The actual Name of God is the beginning of Power.

 

Well regardless of Christian or Jewish theological doctrine about whether the Name is hidden, should be prounced, or how much power it has.....in the scriptures I provided the God of the Israelites CLEARLY identifies Himself as "YHWH".
That wasn't hidden but clearly announced.
 

 

 

All I  know and its has been known for time now....is that it is passed on among a Chosen Few - yet kept in plain view

 

And you say it is "Jah"?

 

 

 


So if Yahweh is a Physical being then he is not a Neteru

 

That's what YOU say because YOU don't believe that the Neters are physical, but spiritual/principles.
I'm not sure if this is the case though.

 

It could be that the Neteru were the physical Beings Who governed OVER certain principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yahweh is a Member of the Elohim....are they the same as the Anunnaki.

 

Not sure if they're the same Beings being called by different regional names or actually different Beings or of different ranks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they are then my guess is that the Elohim is the Name of members of the Ruling Council or High Ranking Officers

 

That's pretty clear that the Elohim (also translated as Mighty Ones) were a ruling Council.

 

 

 

 

Could be.....Then what Happened to the advance black people?
 

I don't know.
I have many theories.
 


 


He was "part" of something that was not human.....Anunnaki.
In today's vernacular we interpret that to be God

 

This assumes that Zacharia Sitchin's interpretation that the Anunnaki were non-humans from another planet, is correct.
But I have questions about this and other works of his though.

It could be that his translation of the Sumerian text was wrong...and possibly INTENTIONALLY wrong and mistranslated.
It could be that the Anunnaki are simply advanced flesh and blood human beings who came from another region of THIS planet to build a civilization in Sumer and that somehow their story was TURNED into a more sci-fi version at the hands of deceptive scholars.

 

 

 


Mixture of Humans and Anunnaki results in Giants.

 

Where did you get this information?

 

 


Black people and white people mixing do not result in Giants....how do you answer that

 

My answer is: You're correct.
Mixing Black people with White people do NOT produce Giants.
But again, outside of the King James MIS-translation of Genesis...who said "Giants" were being produced?

According to Genesis when Abraham looked up and saw the Lord and two Angels...he saw 3 men...not Giants.
They apparently were small enough in stature to go inside of his tent and have a meal.

If the Lord and Angels were of relatively normal size...and humans are of normal size....where are these "giants" coming from?


According to the New Testament.....
Jesus was not only human but Divine and a child of the Lord; yet nothing in the scripture even suggested that he was a "giant" among the other humans he dwelt among.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 


frankster

 


The Truth is always hidden i n plain sight....

Remember it was the Hebrew duty to hide the actual true pronunciation of the Name of God....If a mistranslation but a part of the true enunciation out there how do The Hebrew confront it?


First of all WHICH "God" are you talking about?
There are many in scripture.
Based on my research the Highest God in the Bible is called "El".

Creator God.... 

El is the name of an Anunnaki  or a physical being or an organization to which they belong to.

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Second, if it were their duty to hide the name, why did they put it in their scriptures?

And if the name in their scriptures was NOT the actual name but a purposeful "mistranslation" in order to conceal (there's that word again...lol) the true name...which you claim is "Jah"...then why is it NOW revealed at this time?
 

If they were supposed to conceal it back then, they are supposed to conceal it now.

Those are your conjectures.

They did not and I made no claim to knowing it...

Only of knowing of it's secrecy.....Nor did I say "jah" is it

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Clouds are in Heaven - sky

 

Ok???
And what does THIS have to do with the fact and dilemma that you have two CLEARLY different English translations of the same Hebrew words?

Again, both of them can't be correct.


Heaven is NOT the same as clouds any more than waves are the same as the ocean.

The Look up meaning of the word Heaven or Heavens?

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Clouds are meant to Confound.

 

....yeah and that ain't the only thing that was meant to confound, lol.

Exactly.

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Information that the actual name of  God is Hidden  is Known.....The Actual Name is still not in the public domain hence Hidden - Amen

 

Are you saying the word "Jah" isn't it either?

I do not know if it is or if it isn't?

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

At this level it's not about right or wrong(error)....it's about Power - The actual Name of God is the beginning of Power.

 

Well regardless of Christian or Jewish theological doctrine about whether the Name is hidden, should be prounced, or how much power it has.....in the scriptures I provided the God of the Israelites CLEARLY identifies Himself as "YHWH".
That wasn't hidden but clearly announced.

True....

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

All I  know and its has been known for time now....is that it is passed on among a Chosen Few - yet kept in plain view

 

And you say it is "Jah"?

No I am not saying it is Jah.....put Jah could be apart of it

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

So if Yahweh is a Physical being then he is not a Neteru

 

That's what YOU say because YOU don't believe that the Neters are physical, but spiritual/principles.
I'm not sure if this is the case though.

It could be that the Neteru were the physical Beings Who governed OVER certain principles.

Neither Am I....but I lean toward them being Principles of Nature.

Gravity is man's explanation/understanding of a Principle of Nature...Man cannot govern Gravity but man can use other Principles(laws) of Nature to usurp/overcome Gravity

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Yahweh is a Member of the Elohim....are they the same as the Anunnaki.

 

Not sure if they're the same Beings being called by different regional names or actually different Beings or of different ranks.

Igigi are said to be from  the Anunnaki home  world  where brought here on earth as workers, they rebelled and humans were created as the solution......Adams Calendar

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

If they are then my guess is that the Elohim is the Name of members of the Ruling Council or High Ranking Officers

 

That's pretty clear that the Elohim (also translated as Mighty Ones) were a ruling Council.

Yes

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

 

Could be.....Then what Happened to the advance black people?
 

I don't know.
I have many theories.

 

Share a few and any links to back it up..

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

He was "part" of something that was not human.....Anunnaki.
In today's vernacular we interpret that to be God

 

This assumes that Zacharia Sitchin's interpretation that the Anunnaki were non-humans from another planet, is correct.
But I have questions about this and other works of his though.

It could be that his translation of the Sumerian text was wrong...and possibly INTENTIONALLY wrong and mistranslated.
It could be that the Anunnaki are simply advanced flesh and blood human beings who came from another region of THIS planet to build a civilization in Sumer and that somehow their story was TURNED into a more sci-fi version at the hands of deceptive scholars.

Other peoples from other parts of the planet speak of something similar happening.....In Mali the Dogon Fish God Nommos (Amma/Amen) or Hebrew  Dagan or Sumerian fish God Oannes.....the story holds some water.

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mixture of Humans and Anunnaki results in Giants.

 

Where did you get this information?

Genesis

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Black people and white people mixing do not result in Giants....how do you answer that

 

My answer is: You're correct.
Mixing Black people with White people do NOT produce Giants.
But again, outside of the King James MIS-translation of Genesis...who said "Giants" were being produced?

According to Genesis when Abraham looked up and saw the Lord and two Angels...he saw 3 men...not Giants.
They apparently were small enough in stature to go inside of his tent and have a meal.

 

It said there offspring were giants not that Angels were giants

 

31 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

If the Lord and Angels were of relatively normal size...and humans are of normal size....where are these "giants" coming from?


According to the New Testament.....
Jesus was not only human but Divine and a child of the Lord; yet nothing in the scripture even suggested that he was a "giant" among the other humans he dwelt among.

In the sense that we are all Children of God and Divine..

The Gnostics preach that Yahweh was not the Creator but a False God - Demiurge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster
 


Creator God.... 

El is the name of an Anunnaki  or a physical being or an organization to which they belong to.

 

 

🤔 -Interesting.....
 

In Genesis chapter 14 we read:

 

image.thumb.png.573eeb9acd942c5c8623bfaab5ed12f2.png

 

 

 

 

What do you think these verses mean when they say "MOST HIGH GOD" or "EL ELYON" or "EL THE MOST HIGH"?

If there is only one Deity, why was this DEITY this time distinguished with the title "Most High"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are your conjectures.

They did not and I made no claim to knowing it...

Only of knowing of it's secrecy.....Nor did I say "jah" is it

 

Lol...do you have dementia?

You don't remember saying, 

 

Quote


Posted May 25
Yes.

Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah.

 

 

 

If you don't believe His name is "Jah" then why did you post this verse?

 

 

 


The Look up meaning of the word Heaven or Heavens?

 

Will the definition be the same as that of "clouds"....lol.
If not, then my assertion that these are two different translations STILL STANDS.

 

 

 


I do not know if it is or if it isn't?

 

You gave the impression that you did.

 

 

 


Igigi are said to be from  the Anunnaki home  world  where brought here on earth as workers, they rebelled and humans were created as the solution......Adams Calendar

 

.....home world, which I presume is "Nibiru".
Am I correct?

 

 

 


Genesis

 

Lol....say no more.
I've already shown where Genesis produces more confusion and more mis-translation after mis-translation.

The word "giants" isn't even the original Hebrew, they were called another name.

 

 


In the sense that we are all Children of God and Divine..

 

Oh, so you don't believe that Jesus was "God's Son" as Christianity teaches?

 

 


The Gnostics preach that Yahweh was not the Creator but a False God - Demiurge.
 
Some of this comes....not from actual research....but as a slick way of separating a lot of the bad or "negative" things allegedly done by Yahweh the God of the Old Testament from the "love teachings" of Christ in the New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster
 


Creator God.... 

El is the name of an Anunnaki  or a physical being or an organization to which they belong to.

 

 

🤔 -Interesting.....
 

In Genesis chapter 14 we read:

 

image.thumb.png.573eeb9acd942c5c8623bfaab5ed12f2.png

 

 

 

 

What do you think these verses mean when they say "MOST HIGH GOD" or "EL ELYON" or "EL THE MOST HIGH"?

If there is only one Deity, why was this DEITY this time distinguished with the title "Most High"?

That there are many types of God.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Those are your conjectures.

They did not and I made no claim to knowing it...

Only of knowing of it's secrecy.....Nor did I say "jah" is it

 

Lol...do you have dementia?

You don't remember saying, 

 

 

 

If you don't believe His name is "Jah" then why did you post this verse?

I never said that was his  secret Name....I posted a verse as you were contending that the Name "Jah" was not biblical.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Look up meaning of the word Heaven or Heavens?

 

Will the definition be the same as that of "clouds"....lol.
If not, then my assertion that these are two different translations STILL STANDS.

Did you look up the meanings?

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I do not know if it is or if it isn't?

 

You gave the impression that you did.

You are Mistaken ......I am in search of that word/Name

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Igigi are said to be from  the Anunnaki home  world  where brought here on earth as workers, they rebelled and humans were created as the solution......Adams Calendar

 

.....home world, which I presume is "Nibiru".
Am I correct?

Yes ..Or belong to the same Civilization  - (group of Planets)

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Genesis

 

Lol....say no more.
I've already shown where Genesis produces more confusion and more mis-translation after mis-translation.

The word "giants" isn't even the original Hebrew, they were called another name.

I Think that Sumerian and Egyptian are the originating source for many bible stories.....As a result many words in the bible may indeed be  borrowed from other languages.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In the sense that we are all Children of God and Divine..

 

Oh, so you don't believe that Jesus was "God's Son" as Christianity teaches?

Jesus Said we are all God's Children....I think it is different from Sons of God.

Jesus is speaking to a Neteru or Principle(Spirit).....While Sons of God seems to speaking of Physical Beings.

 

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Gnostics preach that Yahweh was not the Creator but a False God - Demiurge.
 
Some of this comes....not from actual research....but as a slick way of separating a lot of the bad or "negative" things allegedly done by Yahweh the God of the Old Testament from the "love teachings" of Christ in the New Testament.

This Idea is said to have come from scroll/codices unearth in Egypt in 1900's of writings dated from the 2nd century....it was actual research findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 


I never said that was his  secret Name....I posted a verse as you were contending that the Name "Jah" was not biblical.

 

I questioned whether or not the name "Jah" was in the original translation since the later "J" is a pretty young letter.
...and I still question it.
Especially since the Hebrew transliterations I've seen say "Yah" and "Yahweh" instead of "Jah".

 

 

 

 

Did you look up the meanings?

 

If I look them up will they tell me that clouds are the same as the sky or heaven?

 

 

 

 


I Think that Sumerian and Egyptian are the originating source for many bible stories.....As a result many words in the bible may indeed be  borrowed from other languages.

 

Facts.

A number of Israelites were held captive in Babylon for a number of years and no doubt go some of their stories and religious teachings from the Babylonians....who got THEIRS from the ancient Sumerians who preceded them in that land.

 

 

 


This Idea is said to have come from scroll/codices unearth in Egypt in 1900's of writings dated from the 2nd century....it was actual research findings.

 

Yeah?
Well who "unearthed" these scrolls and codices?

 

Was it the same group of people responsible for stealing land from and killing the Native Americans, kidnapping and enslaving the Africans, and inventing the religion of Christianity to deceive the planet with?

....if I were silly enough to believe ANYTHING that comes from their deceptive hands, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 


I never said that was his  secret Name....I posted a verse as you were contending that the Name "Jah" was not biblical.

 

I questioned whether or not the name "Jah" was in the original translation since the later "J" is a pretty young letter.
...and I still question it.
Especially since the Hebrew transliterations I've seen say "Yah" and "Yahweh" instead of "Jah".

 

Below I quote:

On 5/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, Pioneer1 said:


In the KJV of the Bible that is the spelling used...

Yes the letter "j" is said to be a young letter....but is the sound it represent also young????

 

I don't believe so.
I believe all of the SOUNDS that exist today, existed in the past, you that could be a good point.

It was your incredulity that I was challenging and proved.

 

On 5/27/2023 at 1:02 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

 

Did you look up the meanings?

 

If I look them up will they tell me that clouds are the same as the sky or heaven?

"If" so you did not.

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I Think that Sumerian and Egyptian are the originating source for many bible stories.....As a result many words in the bible may indeed be  borrowed from other languages.

 

Facts.

A number of Israelites were held captive in Babylon for a number of years and no doubt go some of their stories and religious teachings from the Babylonians....who got THEIRS from the ancient Sumerians who preceded them in that land.

No Arguments here

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This Idea is said to have come from scroll/codices unearth in Egypt in 1900's of writings dated from the 2nd century....it was actual research findings.

 

Yeah?
Well who "unearthed" these scrolls and codices?

A Muslim brother it seems of Egypt.

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Was it the same group of people responsible for stealing land from and killing the Native Americans, kidnapping and enslaving the Africans, and inventing the religion of Christianity to deceive the planet with?

....if I were silly enough to believe ANYTHING that comes from their deceptive hands, lol.

No it was not them who unearth the codices... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 


"If" so you did not

 

But I'm writing to YOU right now and asking YOU:  
Do "cloud" and "heaven" mean the same thing?
I'd like YOUR answer before running to the dictionary.

 

 

 

A Muslim brother it seems of Egypt.

 

He may be Muslim, but I'd have to see him to determine if he's a "brother" or not.
You got plenty of racist White and mixed Muslims.

 

 


No it was not them who unearth the codices... 

 

Well did they play any role in translating them or publishing them?

If the devil's hands touched them in ANY way, we have to carefully examine them.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 


"If" so you did not

 

But I'm writing to YOU right now and asking YOU:  
Do "cloud" and "heaven" mean the same thing?
I'd like YOUR answer before running to the dictionary.

Simply answer is No.

but that's not the question I asked.

 

On 6/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, Pioneer1 said:

A Muslim brother it seems of Egypt.

 

He may be Muslim, but I'd have to see him to determine if he's a "brother" or not.
You got plenty of racist White and mixed Muslims.

Fair enough..

I have no photo of him....at this time.

 

On 6/10/2023 at 9:52 AM, Pioneer1 said:

No it was not them who unearth the codices... 

 

Well did they play any role in translating them or publishing them?

If the devil's hands touched them in ANY way, we have to carefully examine them.
 

Very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster


Simply answer is No.

but that's not the question I asked.

 

So if the answer is "no" they DON'T mean the same thing....which we probably both agreed upon anyway....then obviously ONE of the translations is wrong.

Either then word in the original Hebrew was MIS-translated as "cloud" in the Gateway Bible; or the original Hebrew word was MIS-translated in the King James Bible.

 

...but ONE of them is clearly wrong and was MIS-translated.

 

So now we need to figure out WHICH ONE is the incorrect translation and then WHY was it mis-translated.

 

Why do we need to do that?

Why is it important for us to spend time trying to figure out WHY the word was mis-translated?????

For a number of reasons.....

 

1. If ONE word was mis-translated in a particular text, then it's very likely that ANOTHER and OTHER words were also mis-translated.
Which means THAT TEXT can no longer be trusted.

2. If a word was mis-translated we need to find out why to determine if it was PURPOSEFULY mis-translated.
Because if it was mis-translated ON PURPOSE....that means it was meant to deceive the reader.


And if that's the case, we should try to find out what was the agenda of those doing the mis-translating as to why they were intentionally trying to deceive the readers of their Biblical translation.

 

This thing is deeper than Rap....lol.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough..

I have no photo of him....at this time.

 

My brutha......

 

 

 

 


Very likely.

 

Exactly.
Hence my skepticism on certain translations of ancient texts.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster


Simply answer is No.

but that's not the question I asked.

 

So if the answer is "no" they DON'T mean the same thing....which we probably both agreed upon anyway....then obviously ONE of the translations is wrong.

Either then word in the original Hebrew was MIS-translated as "cloud" in the Gateway Bible; or the original Hebrew word was MIS-translated in the King James Bible.

 Or What if they are both right...

Words do have more than one meaning...Which affects Context and Narrative.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

...but ONE of them is clearly wrong and was MIS-translated.

 

So now we need to figure out WHICH ONE is the incorrect translation and then WHY was it mis-translated.

Not Necessarily Mistranslated....But it can be..

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Why do we need to do that?

Why is it important for us to spend time trying to figure out WHY the word was mis-translated?????

For a number of reasons.....

Yeah Why?

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

1. If ONE word was mis-translated in a particular text, then it's very likely that ANOTHER and OTHER words were also mis-translated.
Which means THAT TEXT can no longer be trusted.

The Translated  text is Mistranslated.....Not the Original Text. - One must now render his own understanding given current insights

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

2. If a word was mis-translated we need to find out why to determine if it was PURPOSEFULY mis-translated.
Because if it was mis-translated ON PURPOSE....that means it was meant to deceive the reader. 

If it was done on purpose(intentional)...then yes its a Deception

What if its a matter of Cultural Nuances and Personal Bias....then it is Accidental or Negligence - Unintended without Purpose.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


And if that's the case, we should try to find out what was the agenda of those doing the mis-translating as to why they were intentionally trying to deceive the readers of their Biblical translation.

 

This thing is deeper than Rap....lol.

Yes you could....I would rather translate the original text nearer to its true meaning.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Fair enough..

I have no photo of him....at this time.

 

My brutha......

We all are Africans.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Very likely.

 

Exactly.
Hence my skepticism on certain translations of ancient texts.

Find then the Ancient texts yourself a new translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frank

 

 

Or What if they are both right...

Words do have more than one meaning...Which affects Context and Narrative.

 

That possibility exists.
If that's the case, then in MY opinion a good transliteration would put BOTH meanings out side by side instead of only one.

 


 

Yeah Why?

 

If a person believes the Bible is "God's Word"...what would be more important than making sure you are EXREMELY ACCURATE down to the very minute detail in translating it?

 

Even engineers are extremely meticulous when it comes to the mathematics needed to make cars and airplanes.
Shouldn't it be even MORE exact when it comes to texts that a person believes is the Words of God?

 

Also, if a person is trying to deceive me...I'd like to know WHO it is and WHY they are.
Get to the bottom of it.
Get to the root of it.

 

Because if they are trying to harm me in ONE way, they may be trying to harm me in other ways too.
So I need to know in order to properly protect myself.

 

 

 

 


The Translated  text is Mistranslated.....Not the Original Text. - One must now render his own understanding given current insights

 

True, but also keep in mind the ORIGINAL text could still contain errors and inaccuracies also.

Also, one should ask one's self...
If they indeed came from God, why would God present a text to humanity that needs "translating"?

Why not present it in a text that EVERYONE can read easily and crystal clearly?
No need to pass through the "prone to corruption" hands of another human being.

 

 

 

 

What if its a matter of Cultural Nuances and Personal Bias....then it is Accidental or Negligence - Unintended without Purpose.

 

Good point.
Still, my question would be IF the text was sent by God and meant for humanity and it has been mistranslated or inaccurately translated...why did God not protect it from any form of mistranslation or inaccuracy?

 

 

 

 

Find then the Ancient texts yourself a new translation.

 

If I thought it was THAT important, I would.
But I don't find it that important because I personally don't believe it came from God.
It may make for a good read and interest me for the purposes of piecing together ancient history...but I don't see them as "God's Word".
 

Trust me, if I truly believed it came from God....much of my time would be devoted to finding these texts and trying my best to get an accurate translation or better yet learning the ancient language.
But I don't...so I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frank

 

 

Or What if they are both right...

Words do have more than one meaning...Which affects Context and Narrative.

 

That possibility exists.
If that's the case, then in MY opinion a good transliteration would put BOTH meanings out side by side instead of only one.

Exactly.

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Yeah Why?

 

If a person believes the Bible is "God's Word"...what would be more important than making sure you are EXREMELY ACCURATE down to the very minute detail in translating it?

 

Even engineers are extremely meticulous when it comes to the mathematics needed to make cars and airplanes.
Shouldn't it be even MORE exact when it comes to texts that a person believes is the Words of God?

 

Also, if a person is trying to deceive me...I'd like to know WHO it is and WHY they are.
Get to the bottom of it.
Get to the root of it.

 

Because if they are trying to harm me in ONE way, they may be trying to harm me in other ways too.
So I need to know in order to properly protect myself.

Once you have a accurate translation...... many of the above questions will be answered

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The Translated  text is Mistranslated.....Not the Original Text. - One must now render his own understanding given current insights

 

True, but also keep in mind the ORIGINAL text could still contain errors and inaccuracies also.

Also, one should ask one's self...

 

True..

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

If they indeed came from God, why would God present a text to humanity that needs "translating"?

Why not present it in a text that EVERYONE can read easily and crystal clearly?
No need to pass through the "prone to corruption" hands of another human being.

The Divine has.......Conscience.

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

What if its a matter of Cultural Nuances and Personal Bias....then it is Accidental or Negligence - Unintended without Purpose.

 

Good point.
Still, my question would be IF the text was sent by God and meant for humanity and it has been mistranslated or inaccurately translated...why did God not protect it from any form of mistranslation or inaccuracy?

All Text is Man's Interpretation of the Divine.....The Divine is also You Me and every living thing. and more.

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Find then the Ancient texts yourself a new translation.

 

If I thought it was THAT important, I would.
But I don't find it that important because I personally don't believe it came from God.
It may make for a good read and interest me for the purposes of piecing together ancient history...but I don't see them as "God's Word".

 

They are Man's attempt to pass on his Understanding of the Divine and the Reality we live in..

We stand on the shoulders of those who come before....so to speak

 

On 6/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Trust me, if I truly believed it came from God....much of my time would be devoted to finding these texts and trying my best to get an accurate translation or better yet learning the ancient language.
But I don't...so I'm not.

To Each his own...according to their Order

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster



Once you have a accurate translation...... many of the above questions will be answered
 

Well, I think the one I've been quoting from and posting is one of the most accurate out there right now.
It's a near literal transliteration and translation which is almost as exact as you can get given the language/cultural barrier.




All Text is Man's Interpretation of the Divine.....The Divine is also You Me and every living thing. and more.
 

In my opinion and understanding, Divine doesn't always mean God or The SUPREME BEING.



 

They are Man's attempt to pass on his Understanding of the Divine and the Reality we live in..
 

Or an attempt to CONTROL humanity through deception and psychological intimidation.

What's a better way to control people and get them to follow YOUR wishes than telling them "God" commanded that they do so?
Especially if you don't really believe in God in the first place so you're not worried that God will come down and correct you and your lies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster



Once you have a accurate translation...... many of the above questions will be answered
 

Well, I think the one I've been quoting from and posting is one of the most accurate out there right now.
It's a near literal transliteration and translation which is almost as exact as you can get given the language/cultural barrier.

Fine by me as long as it fits with the information I already has vetted as true or brings new compelling evidence which would then force me to change.

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

All Text is Man's Interpretation of the Divine.....The Divine is also You Me and every living thing. and more.
 

In my opinion and understanding, Divine doesn't always mean God or The SUPREME BEING.

The Divine is more Abstract.....The Best word  I find is NATURE.

The Idea of a Supreme Being sounds too individualistic

The word God has a history that is not all that fitting

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They are Man's attempt to pass on his Understanding of the Divine and the Reality we live in..
 

Or an attempt to CONTROL humanity through deception and psychological intimidation.

Yes...that is true of some

 

7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What's a better way to control people and get them to follow YOUR wishes than telling them "God" commanded that they do so?
Especially if you don't really believe in God in the first place so you're not worried that God will come down and correct you and your lies.

Rulers and the Rich find Religion and God as useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 


Fine by me as long as it fits with the information I already has vetted as true or brings new compelling evidence which would then force me to change.

 

Lol...so are there things in the Bible that you've "vetted" as being true?

 

 

 

The Idea of a Supreme Being sounds too individualistic

 

Is that a problem for you?

 

 

 

 

 

The word God has a history that is not all that fitting

 

I've heard other people say that.
As far as I'm concerned, man can't ruin the name "God" by their misdeeds.

 

 

 


Rulers and the Rich find Religion and God as useful.

 

They certainly use religion as a means of power and control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

Fine by me as long as it fits with the information I already has vetted as true or brings new compelling evidence which would then force me to change.

 

Lol...so are there things in the Bible that you've "vetted" as being true?

Yes...

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Idea of a Supreme Being sounds too individualistic

 

Is that a problem?

Yes

Nature can be a Singularity in which "Beings" Exist.

These Beings or Being can express more or less of particular Aspects of Nature.

The All Pervading and all Encompassing  quality of Nature cannot be seen as Individual....... but only consisting of Individuals

Ancient African Scientist simply refer to this as The ......ALL

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The word God has a history that is not all that fitting

 

I've heard other people say that.
As far as I'm concerned, man can't ruin the name "God" by their misdeeds.

I am Not referring in any way to the History or Concept of God or what it represents....but Man's use of the word or the origins of the word God itself.

 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Rulers and the Rich find Religion and God as useful.

 

They certainly use religion as a means of power and control.

Hence its/their Usefulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 


Yes...

 

Can you give me 3/three things from the Bible that you have personally vetted and confirmed as being true?

 

 

 


Yes

Nature can be a Singularity in which "Beings" Exist.

These Beings or Being can express more or less of particular Aspects of Nature.

 

Yes, I agree.
Still waiting on why the idea of a Supreme Being is "problematic" for you.

 

 

 

 


The All Pervading and all Encompassing  quality of Nature cannot be seen as Individual....... but only consisting of Individuals

 

But we're not talking about "Nature", but the BEING Who Created Nature.

 

 

 

 

 

Ancient African Scientist simply refer to this as The ......ALL.

 

Perhaps some did...perhaps some didn't.
I don't believe there was only ONE school of thought on how to approach or What to call The SUPREME BEING.

Further, "ALL/all" is an English word so I'm almost certain ancient Africans didn't use that particular term either even if they maintained the idea it represented.


It would seem to me that the INTENT of the word in use...especially when we lack a better or adequate term....carries a certain amount of weight during a discussion....lol

 

 


I am Not referring in any way to the History or Concept of God or what it represents....but Man's use of the word or the origins of the word God itself.

 

Ok.
As you probably already know, the word "God" comes from the Germanic word "Gott".

 

Your observation is one of the reasons I prefer the term "SUPREME BEING" where referring to the HIGHEST MOST POWERFUL BEING and CREATOR of all Existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 


Yes...

 

Can you give me 3/three things from the Bible that you have personally vetted and confirmed as being true?

Love the lord with all the heart soul and mind

Thou shall not Steal

THou shall not Covet thy neighbor

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes

Nature can be a Singularity in which "Beings" Exist.

These Beings or Being can express more or less of particular Aspects of Nature.

 

Yes, I agree.
Still waiting on why the idea of a Supreme Being is "problematic" for you.

It is as I have said ....The Idea of a Supreme Being is too Individualistic.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The All Pervading and all Encompassing  quality of Nature cannot be seen as Individual....... but only consisting of Individuals

 

But we're not talking about "Nature", but the BEING Who Created Nature.

Nature is Neteru/NTR

Nature is All - in whom we move and have our Being

Nature is the Sum Total of All Beings

I do not believe a Being Created Nature.....Nor do I believe Nature was Created

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Ancient African Scientist simply refer to this as The ......ALL.

 

Perhaps some did...perhaps some didn't.
I don't believe there was only ONE school of thought on how to approach or What to call The SUPREME BEING.

You would be Surprise how Coherent African Thought is across the Continent.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Further, "ALL/all" is an English word so I'm almost certain ancient Africans didn't use that particular term either even if they maintained the idea it represented.

True.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It would seem to me that the INTENT of the word in use...especially when we lack a better or adequate term....carries a certain amount of weight during a discussion....lol

Yes it does

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I am Not referring in any way to the History or Concept of God or what it represents....but Man's use of the word or the origins of the word God itself.

 

Ok.
As you probably already know, the word "God" comes from the Germanic word "Gott".

So I have been told.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Your observation is one of the reasons I prefer the term "SUPREME BEING" where referring to the HIGHEST MOST POWERFUL BEING and CREATOR of all Existence.

It is a Title for a Being and not necessarily The actual position or abilities of this Being.....definitely not Thee Creator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 


Love the lord with all the heart soul and mind

Thou shall not Steal

THou shall not Covet thy neighbor


These aren't things confirmed and vetted AS being true, these are  COMMANDMENTS to obey.

 

 

 

It is as I have said ....The Idea of a Supreme Being is too Individualistic.

 

So you don't see The SUPREME BEING as an Individual Who Exists outside of Creation?

 

 

 

 

 

Nature is Neteru/NTR
Nature is All - in whom we move and have our Being

 

Well.....
This is your opinion, but OK.

 

 

 

 

Nature is the Sum Total of All Beings

 

Oh...

 

 

 

I do not believe a Being Created Nature.....Nor do I believe Nature was Created


Oh my....

 

 

 

You would be Surprise how Coherent African Thought is across the Continent.

 

I'd be surprised if you could show me where ancient Africans believed God was synonymous with the "ALL".

 

 

 

 

It is a Title for a Being and not necessarily The actual position or abilities of this Being.....definitely not Thee Creator.


Supreme means Highest and Greatest.
In my opinion it's quite fitting since I believe the same BEING who is Supreme/Highest/Most Powerful is also the same BEING WHO is the Highest CREATOR.
Same BEING.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 


Love the lord with all the heart soul and mind

Thou shall not Steal

THou shall not Covet thy neighbor


These aren't things confirmed and vetted AS being true, these are  COMMANDMENTS to obey.

I Find them True as in Effective  Beneficial and Rewarding.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It is as I have said ....The Idea of a Supreme Being is too Individualistic.

 

So you don't see The SUPREME BEING as an Individual Who Exists outside of Creation?

No.

I see what you are referring to as the Supreme Being (Thee Creator) as Nature.

Nature is Creation....

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Nature is Neteru/NTR
Nature is All - in whom we move and have our Being

 

Well.....
This is your opinion, but OK.

Yes it is.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Nature is the Sum Total of All Beings

 

Oh...

Yep...

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I do not believe a Being Created Nature.....Nor do I believe Nature was Created


Oh my....

Yep...

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You would be Surprise how Coherent African Thought is across the Continent.

 

I'd be surprised if you could show me where ancient Africans believed God was synonymous with the "ALL".

Animism is  almost Universal in most if not all African Cultures Religions and Spiritual Beliefs.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It is a Title for a Being and not necessarily The actual position or abilities of this Being.....definitely not Thee Creator.


Supreme means Highest and Greatest.

Yes that is the Meaning of the "words"....

If we are talking "Beings" like unto the Anunnaki Then it is a "Title"....

Beings use Available Forces/Energies in Accordance to the Laws of Nature limited to their Understanding of Nature.

It becomes Evident to me That all Beings are subject To Nature...Hence a Individual Being can not be Highest or Greatest. - except among fellow Beings

 

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In my opinion it's quite fitting since I believe the same BEING who is Supreme/Highest/Most Powerful is also the same BEING WHO is the Highest CREATOR.
Same BEING.
 

Is this Being akin to the Anunnaki?

Then explain your conceptualizations of this BEING.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankster

 

 


I Find them True as in Effective  Beneficial and Rewarding.

 

I'm not sure how effective I'll be in getting the type of answer I'm looking for out of this, lol.

I'm asking for some examples of events that took place in the Bible that YOU have vetted yourself and confirmed as being true.

 

 

 


No.

I see what you are referring to as the Supreme Being (Thee Creator) as Nature.

Nature is Creation....

 

I see...
Well I personally see Nature as PART of Creation and Creation as SEPARATE from the BEING Who Created It.
However you've made your position on the matter crystal clear so I guess we'll just disagree on this point and move on

 

 

 

 


Animism is  almost Universal in most if not all African Cultures Religions and Spiritual Beliefs.

 

While the above is true, this is NOT what you said.

You suggested that in ancient Africans beliefs, God was synonymous with the "ALL".

 

To MY knowledge....Animism does NOT equate God with the ALL.
To MY knowledge and understanding....Animism says that there is a Divine Spirit that exists in all living things.
Quite different.

 

Again, I don't know of many (or any as I think about it right now) African philosophy that says God is "all things".

I know some AFRICAN AMERICANS who believe that....but no continental Africans.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes that is the Meaning of the "words"....

If we are talking "Beings" like unto the Anunnaki Then it is a "Title"....

Beings use Available Forces/Energies in Accordance to the Laws of Nature limited to their Understanding of Nature.

It becomes Evident to me That all Beings are subject To Nature.

 

How can the BEING Who CREATED Nature be "subject" to it?

That's similar to saying a person who BUILT a house is inferior and subject to the house itself.
Or that a person who made a law and has the power to enforce it or abrogate it...is subject to it and inferior to it.

 

 

 

 

..Hence a Individual Being can not be Highest or Greatest. - except among fellow Beings

 

A Being can be the highest in their CATEGORY.


Best/highest HUMAN being.
Best/highest Volcano
Best/highest School in the country

But when we're talking about The SUPREME BEING, you're talking about the Best and Highest of all Beings in Existence.

 

 

 

 

Is this Being akin to the Anunnaki?

 

No.
This BEING is before the Anunnaki and most likely Created the Anunnaki.

 

 

 


Then explain your conceptualizations of this BEING.

 

My explanation is simple.
The SUPREME BEING is the First Being in Existence and started the process of Creating the rest of Existence.
The SUPREME BEING is also the most Powerful Being in Existence.

 

I think you're looking for me to provide a specific name, or title, or identity to this SUPREME BEING.
I'm not sure that is necessary because the concept is quite simple.

Think of all of the Beings that exist.
Some are Superior others are inferior.
Now when you think of the Superior and Powerful Beings imagine THEE most Powerful of Them.
THEE most Powerful of all Beings would have to be The SUPREME BEING.

 

No need to overthink this concept.

 

No Being in Existence that is Higher or more Powerful means This BEING is Supreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

I Find them True as in Effective  Beneficial and Rewarding.

 

I'm not sure how effective I'll be in getting the type of answer I'm looking for out of this, lol.

I'm asking for some examples of events that took place in the Bible that YOU have vetted yourself and confirmed as being true.

Tell me which story you find impossible to be vetted??

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

No.

I see what you are referring to as the Supreme Being (Thee Creator) as Nature.

Nature is Creation....

 

I see...
Well I personally see Nature as PART of Creation and Creation as SEPARATE from the BEING Who Created It.
However you've made your position on the matter crystal clear so I guess we'll just disagree on this point and move on

Yes we agree to disagree.

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Animism is  almost Universal in most if not all African Cultures Religions and Spiritual Beliefs.

 

While the above is true, this is NOT what you said.

You suggested that in ancient Africans beliefs, God was synonymous with the "ALL".

 

To MY knowledge....Animism does NOT equate God with the ALL.
To MY knowledge and understanding....Animism says that there is a Divine Spirit that exists in all living things.
Quite different.

 

Again, I don't know of many (or any as I think about it right now) African philosophy that says God is "all things".

I know some AFRICAN AMERICANS who believe that....but no continental Africans.

In Animism The Divine exists in the All things animate and inanimate, in words and places......and all things exist in the Divine - Therefore the Dive is the All

Just as we are a part of Nature, we exist in Nature and Nature is in us...We are Made of Nature

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Yes that is the Meaning of the "words"....

If we are talking "Beings" like unto the Anunnaki Then it is a "Title"....

Beings use Available Forces/Energies in Accordance to the Laws of Nature limited to their Understanding of Nature.

It becomes Evident to me That all Beings are subject To Nature.

 

How can the BEING Who CREATED Nature be "subject" to it?

That's similar to saying a person who BUILT a house is inferior and subject to the house itself.
Or that a person who made a law and has the power to enforce it or abrogate it...is subject to it and inferior to it.

I do not accept the idea that a Being created Nature

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

..Hence a Individual Being can not be Highest or Greatest. - except among fellow Beings

 

A Being can be the highest in their CATEGORY.


Best/highest HUMAN being.
Best/highest Volcano
Best/highest School in the country

But when we're talking about The SUPREME BEING, you're talking about the Best and Highest of all Beings in Existence.

Beings are in Existence.....Existence is Nature - Nature is the sum total of all forms Realities.

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Is this Being akin to the Anunnaki?

 

No.
This BEING is before the Anunnaki and most likely Created the Anunnaki.

Cool

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Then explain your conceptualizations of this BEING.

 

My explanation is simple.
The SUPREME BEING is the First Being in Existence and started the process of Creating the rest of Existence.
The SUPREME BEING is also the most Powerful Being in Existence.

This Being is the First......Implies that it is Of a Kind(specie)....of which they are more

It seems this Being is subject to Existence....Existence denotes Objectivity - All Objects exist in Time and Space.

Objects in Time and Space indicates.....Finiteness - Limitations.

 

From what did this being Create Existence?

in Existence means it is a part Of existence

Which.... isn't it  already In Existence) ?

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

I think you're looking for me to provide a specific name, or title, or identity to this SUPREME BEING.
I'm not sure that is necessary because the concept is quite simple.

Think of all of the Beings that exist.
Some are Superior others are inferior.
Now when you think of the Superior and Powerful Beings imagine THEE most Powerful of Them.
THEE most Powerful of all Beings would have to be The SUPREME BEING.

How do you define Power?

 

On 6/24/2023 at 8:06 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

No need to overthink this concept.

 

No Being in Existence that is Higher or more Powerful means This BEING is Supreme.

This Being belongs to Hierarchy Of Beings of which this Being is the Supreme.....Because this Being is The Most Powerful

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 

 


Tell me which story you find impossible to be vetted??

 

I don't find anything in this world "impossible".
Improbable....often...but not impossible.

Again, can you tell me some stories of the Bible that YOU have vetted as absolutely true?

 

 


In Animism The Divine exists in the All things animate and inanimate, in words and places......and all things exist in the Divine - Therefore the Dive is the All

Just as we are a part of Nature, we exist in Nature and Nature is in us...We are Made of Nature


First of all, existing IN something and having it exist IN you isn't necessarily the same as BEING that same something.

 

A person who's drowning can exist IN water and have that same water exist in THEM (in their lungs).
That doesn't mean THEY are the water or lake they're drowning in.

 

Furthermore.....

Just because Nature exists and we exist and our bodies are part of it...doesn't in any way shape or form cancel out the high probability that a Superior BEING could have and like did create BOTH (us and nature).


Nice try though.....lol.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not accept the idea that a Being created Nature

 

Oh, well that's your right.
Not much I can do with that....lol.

 

 

 


Beings are in Existence.....Existence is Nature - Nature is the sum total of all forms Realities.

 

Well...those are YOUR beliefs.

I believe that EXISTENCE includes the sum total of all Realities....but Nature isn't.

Nature is PART of Existence but not the only part.

 

 

 

 

 

This Being is the First......Implies that it is Of a Kind(specie)....of which they are more

 

Not necessarily.
Something or someone can be the first and ONLY.

 

 

 

 

It seems this Being is subject to Existence....Existence denotes Objectivity - All Objects exist in Time and Space.

 

I thought you said "time didn't exist"...lol.
But yes, The SUPREME BEING Exists.

 

 

 

 

Objects in Time and Space indicates.....Finiteness - Limitations.

 

Not necessarily.
Says who?

 

 

 

From what did this being Create Existence?

 

That's the beauty of Creation...you don't have to create "from" anything.
Unlike MAKING which often requires that you put together something from material already in existence....when you Create you just bring it into existence from NON-existence.

 

 


in Existence means it is a part Of existence

 

Ok...

 

 

 

 

Which.... isn't it  already In Existence) ?


Well just a moment!

Not all that exists was always already in Existence.
The SUPREME BEING has always Exist....however what The SUPREME BEING Created didn't always Exist but was brought INTO Existence.

 

 


How do you define Power?

 

Effectiveness.

 

 

This Being belongs to Hierarchy Of Beings of which this Being is the Supreme.

 

That's one way of putting it.

 

 

 

....Because this Being is The Most Powerful

 

Correct


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 

 


Tell me which story you find impossible to be vetted??

 

I don't find anything in this world "impossible".
Improbable....often...but not impossible.

Again, can you tell me some stories of the Bible that YOU have vetted as absolutely true?

Pick Your choice...I find meaning in most Bible Stories - Therein lies the Truth

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In Animism The Divine exists in the All things animate and inanimate, in words and places......and all things exist in the Divine - Therefore the Dive is the All

Just as we are a part of Nature, we exist in Nature and Nature is in us...We are Made of Nature


First of all, existing IN something and having it exist IN you isn't necessarily the same as BEING that same something.

It is most definitely so if I am also completely made of the same thing.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

A person who's drowning can exist IN water and have that same water exist in THEM (in their lungs).
That doesn't mean THEY are the water or lake they're drowning in.

We are  70% water....so we are more Lake than flesh and blood 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Furthermore.....

Just because Nature exists and we exist and our bodies are part of it...doesn't in any way shape or form cancel out the high probability that a Superior BEING could have and like did create BOTH (us and nature).


Nice try though.....lol.

You are part 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I do not accept the idea that a Being created Nature

 

Oh, well that's your right.
Not much I can do with that....lol.

Show me a Being that is not in part and whole of Nature

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Beings are in Existence.....Existence is Nature - Nature is the sum total of all forms Realities.

 

Well...those are YOUR beliefs.

I believe that EXISTENCE includes the sum total of all Realities....but Nature isn't.

Nature is PART of Existence but not the only part.

What Part of Existence is not Nature???

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This Being is the First......Implies that it is Of a Kind(specie)....of which they are more

 

Not necessarily.
Something or someone can be the first and ONLY.

If it's the Only it cannot also be the First until there is a second.....Is there a second Supreme Being?

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

It seems this Being is subject to Existence....Existence denotes Objectivity - All Objects exist in Time and Space.

 

I thought you said "time didn't exist"...lol.
But yes, The SUPREME BEING Exists.

Exactly....Objects Only exist by being Observed

Hence they are subject to the Mind of the Observer....In Shared Physical Reality the Observer/s Construct Time and Space for us to experience Physicality.

If This Supreme Being exist in Time and Space them it is a Product of Shared Physical reality.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Objects in Time and Space indicates.....Finiteness - Limitations.

 

Not necessarily.
Says who?

Says me...All objects in time and space typically hold a particular shape and occupy one  locale at a time - thus is the nature of the observable shared physical reality.

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

From what did this being Create Existence?

 

That's the beauty of Creation...you don't have to create "from" anything.
Unlike MAKING which often requires that you put together something from material already in existence....when you Create you just bring it into existence from NON-existence.

To Create something from so called Non existence is to be left with Non existence.....Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing .

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 


in Existence means it is a part Of existence

 

Ok...

 

 

 

 

Which.... isn't it  already In Existence) ?


Well just a moment!

Not all that exists was always already in Existence.
The SUPREME BEING has always Exist....however what The SUPREME BEING Created didn't always Exist but was brought INTO Existence.

Bought into existence from where?

 

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How do you define Power?

 

Effectiveness.

How do you know that this Being is most effective?

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This Being belongs to Hierarchy Of Beings of which this Being is the Supreme.

 

That's one way of putting it.

You said this Being is Supreme....if this Being is supreme there must be Lower beings?

 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

....Because this Being is The Most Powerful

 

Correct

Comparing to fellow beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


frankster

 


Pick Your choice...I find meaning in most Bible Stories - Therein lies the Truth

 

Well "finding meaning" isn't the same as confirming or verifying that something is TRUE.
You can "find meaning" in the trail of slime that a snail leaves as it crawls across the sidewalk...lol.

 

It's not about "my choice", I'm asking you what stories in the Bible have YOU confirmed as being true?

 

Ok...so let's start at the beginning.
What about the story of Adam and Eve and the talking serpent; have YOU CONFIRMED this story as being truth?
And if so, how did you confirm it?

 

 

 

 

It is most definitely so if I am also completely made of the same thing.

 

Yes, IF you were COMPLETELY made of the same thing.
But you're not....which is why you are different from it.

 

You may have water IN you like the lake, but you also have other things in you the lake doesn't have like Vitamin B, Vitamin E, testosterone, Omega 3 acids, etc....so you're NOT the same thing.

 

 


We are  70% water....so we are more Lake than flesh and blood 

 

Lol....read the above.
Also, the lake probably has aligators and snakes it it....you don't. 
So again, even if you were 99% water you wouldn't be the same as the lake.
You're in it...SOME of it is in you....but you are NOT the same as the lake.

 

 

 

 

Show me a Being that is not in part and whole of Nature

 

I'll show you two:

 

A telephone

 

image.png.e543e34670f077cfdb9a7951f6f6020d.png

 

 

 

A jet plane

 

image.png.670c6a1d2cb0a5b179cdbc1064116e18.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Part of Existence is not Nature???

 

See my previous response for atleast 2 examples.
And there are many many more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it's the Only it cannot also be the First until there is a second.....Is there a second Supreme Being?

 

To answer your question, to my knowledge NO there isn't a second.

First may IMPLY that there is a second but doesn't necessarily MEAN there is a second.
Sometimes the first can be the ONLY as well.


Karen Bass if the FIRST AfroAmerican female mayor of Los Angeles and so far she's the ONLY one.

 

image.png.26792147eee0c992ef04a7a044b8a079.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly....Objects Only exist by being Observed

 

I don't ascribe to this theory.
I don't think "observation" has any impact on the existence of a thing.

 

 

 


If This Supreme Being exist in Time and Space them it is a Product of Shared Physical reality.

 

The SUPREME BEING exists both in and out of Time and Space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Create something from so called Non existence is to be left with Non existence.

 

No, that's not true.
If that was the case, then you would have to believe that everything that exists RIGHT NOW has ALWAYS existed.

 

 

 


Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing .

 

A song by a LIMITED human being who can't even MAKE most things, let alone CREATE them.

 

 

 


Bought into existence from where?

 

The question wouldn't be from "where" because it's not being brought from a particular PLACE.

It comes from a particular B/being....a Creator.

So the question would be from W/who???

 

 

 

 


How do you know that this Being is most effective?

 

Because this BEING is the SUPREME.
If there was another BEING more effective then THEY would be the SUPREME BEING.
 

It's not hard if you think about it.


Of all the Beings in existence, the most Effective ONE will be the SUPREME.
The most Powerful ONE will be the SUPREME.

 

The concept isn't difficult to understand.

 

 


You said this Being is Supreme....if this Being is supreme there must be Lower beings?

 

Absolutely.
Infact all other B/beings are Lower than The SUPREME BEING.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:


frankster

 


Pick Your choice...I find meaning in most Bible Stories - Therein lies the Truth

 

Well "finding meaning" isn't the same as confirming or verifying that something is TRUE.
You can "find meaning"in the trail of slime that a snail leaves as it crawls across the sidewalk....lol.

Meaning is all the Truth we seek.

Yes The Meaning Africans take from "the trail of slime that a snail leaves as it crawls across the sidewalk" is called Geomancy - todays Fractals

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

It's not about "my choice", I'm asking you what stories in the Bible have YOU confirmed as being true?

True but I would rather answer One that causes you ache.

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Ok...so let's start at the beginning.
What about the story of Adam and Eve and the talking serpent; have YOU CONFIRMED this story as being truth?
And if so, how did you confirm it?

They Represent Archetypes of Humanity Male and Female.....The Serpent represent an intelligence within both - This I have confirmed.

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

It is most definitely so if I am also completely made of the same thing.

 

Yes, IF you were COMPLETELY made of the same thing.
But you're not....which is why you are different from it.

We are made of Atoms.....Atoms are part of Nature.

I am It from a different Perspective and Frequency

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You may have water IN you like the lake, but you also have other things in you the lake doesn't have like Vitamin B, Vitamin E, testosterone, Omega 3 acids, etc....so you're NOT the same thing.

They are all Atoms....in Vibrational flux

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We are  70% water....so we are more Lake than flesh and blood 

 

Lol....read the above.
Also, the lake probably has aligators and snakes it it....you don't. 
So again, even if you were 99% water you wouldn't be the same as the lake.
You're in it...SOME of it is in you....but you are NOT the same as the lake.

We appear different as a result of Perspective and Perception Duality and Bias.

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Show me a Being that is not in part and whole of Nature

 

I'll show you two:

 

A telephone

 

image.png.e543e34670f077cfdb9a7951f6f6020d.png

 

 

 

A jet plane

 

image.png.670c6a1d2cb0a5b179cdbc1064116e18.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Part of Existence is not Nature???

 

See my previous response for atleast 2 examples.
And there are many many more.

Where Did the material come from to make these things?

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

if it's the Only it cannot also be the First until there is a second.....Is there a second Supreme Being?

 

To answer your question, to my knowledge NO there isn't a second.

First may IMPLY that there is a second but doesn't necessarily MEAN there is a second.
Sometimes the first can be the ONLY as well.


Karen Bass if the FIRST AfroAmerican female mayor of Los Angeles and so far she's the ONLY one.

 

image.png.26792147eee0c992ef04a7a044b8a079.png

 

There are many more women out there qualified to hold the title and office of Mayor..

Are there many more beings out there qualified to be the Supreme?

Is the Supreme a Title or Office?

In other words is it the Only or First?

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Exactly....Objects Only exist by being Observed

 

I don't ascribe to this theory.
I don't think "observation" has any impact on the existence of a thing.

Cool then we agree to disagree

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If This Supreme Being exist in Time and Space them it is a Product of Shared Physical reality.

 

The SUPREME BEING exists both in and out of Time and Space.

Ok

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

To Create something from so called Non existence is to be left with Non existence.

 

No, that's not true.
If that was the case, then you would have to believe that everything that exists RIGHT NOW has ALWAYS existed.

Yes.....That is the case

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Nothing from Nothing leaves Nothing .

 

A song by a LIMITED human being who can't even MAKE most things, let alone CREATE them.

 

 

 


Bought into existence from where?

 

The question wouldn't be from "where" because it's not being brought from a particular PLACE.

It comes from a particular B/being....a Creator.

So the question would be from W/who???

So this Being created  Existence from itself???

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How do you know that this Being is most effective?

 

Because this BEING is the SUPREME.
If there was another BEING more effective then THEY would be the SUPREME BEING.
 

It's not hard if you think about it.


Of all the Beings in existence, the most Effective ONE will be the SUPREME.
The most Powerful ONE will be the SUPREME.

 

The concept isn't difficult to understand.

So there other Beings with which this Being is of a Kind?.....possible contenders?

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You said this Being is Supreme....if this Being is supreme there must be Lower beings?

 

Absolutely.
Infact all other B/beings are Lower than The SUPREME BEING.

Is this a Being or an Entity?

 

15 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...