The UFO question

[Undomiel]

This topic arose in the "Physical Evidence for the Global Flood" thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5512&perpage=16&pagenumber=7

Since it was basically high-jacking the thread, I thought it might be a good idea to make a new topic for it.

Currently, there's debate on several fronts regarding UFOs and how they fit into the biblical stories of creation, the flood, the Messiah, and prophecy. On the "Physical Evidence for the Global Flood" thread, I addressed this issue by proxy while attempting to explain that Noah was indeed one of the kings from the Sumerian King's List, and any archaeological evidence you would require to the validity of this claim is already available in the archaeological relics and writings of ancient Sumer. To get to this point, however, I spent quite some time explaining several related topics which by the "Annunaki" association connect them to the current UFO theories presented by authors like Zecharia Sitchin and Erich Von Daniken [Chariot of the Gods].

This spurned a debate regarding the validity of UFOs on the same thread. My initial premise is that UFOs may be supernatural phenomenon and that the "alien" lifeforms accused of abducting people and performing frightening experiments on them may in fact be demonic in nature. This concept was met with some resistance by the atheist population of TWEB as was the issue of the reality [or lack thereof] of UFOs as real physical objects or supernatural events.

So this is where we are currently at. What's your position on this complex issue?

To establish the truth and originality of the Flood of Noah, I will be providing information from several extra biblical sources, as well as from the bible itself.

First let's establish the players in this ancient drama:

ELOHIYM.
The Sons of God.
The Nephilim or Fallen Down Ones.
The Anakim Nephilim.
An.
Enki.
Enlil.
The Annunaki.
Adam and his descendants, including Noah.
The Antediluvian Sumerian Kings.
The Egyptians.
The Canaanites.
The Sumerians.
The Chinese.

Secondly, let's establish the arena in which these events transpired:

Heaven.
Mesopatamia - The Garden of Eden.
Mesopatamia - Sumer:

Sumer - Shuruppak
Sumer - Ur
Sumer - Uruk
Sumer - Accad (Akkad)
Sumer - Eridu
Sumer - Kishi (Kish)
Sumer - Lagash
Sumer - Mari
Sumer - Nippur
Sumer - Sippur
Mt. Ararat.
Mt. Nimush.

Egypt.
Kush.
Canaan.

The Antediluvian Timetable of Mesopatamian Civilization

Ubaid 5000-3500 B.C.
Uruk 3500-3100 B.C.
Jemdet Nasr 3100-2900 B.C.
Early Dynastic I-III 2900-2350 B.C.

The Antediluvian Timetable of Ancient Egyptian Civilization:

Predynastic until 3000
Archaic 3000 -- 2700
OLD KINGDOM 2700 -- 2200

The Antediluvian Timetable of Nubia Civilization:

3000 to 2350

The Antediluvian Timetable of Chinese Civilization:

2637 to 2350

The Antediluvian Timetable of Indian (India) Civilization:

3000 to 2350

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

Two different and distinct religions arose out of earliest civilization: The younger and more prevalent religion of Sumer, AN-ENKI-ENLIL, and the older religion of Adam and his descendants based on ELOHIYM. The stories surrounding these figures leads one to believe that Elohiym was in fact modelled after the Sumerian triumverate of An-Enki-Enlil, however, this was not the case.

"An" (a male god), "Ki" (a female goddess) and "Enlil" (a lesser male god) figure prominently in the Sumerian stories. "Enki" doesn't spring into existence until later when he becomes both "An" and "Ki" combined, phasing out worship of "An" and "Ki" as separate entities and removing Ki goddess worship from the triumverate entirely. From thereon, Enki and Enlil, both males, are two of the premiere gods of Sumeria. The triumverate godhead is no more. An and Enlil were not Elohiym, in fact, none of them were GOD or GODS, but Sons of God, as I am about to establish.

Enki [An and Ki] was considered the god of magic [An] and creation [An and Ki], while Enlil was considered the lesser god and Prince of the Air. Biblically and extra-biblically, this places them and their offspring in a precarious position. The Enki's danger, regardless if he is in the form of An, An and Ki or just the Enki, is the practice of magic. Enlil's danger is his position as the Prince of the Air. An-Ki-Enki's stories are better told in The Book of Enoch - The Watchers Chapter 6:


1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.

2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men

3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not

4 indeed agree to do this deed, and

I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations

5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves

6 by mutual imprecations upon it.

And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn

Chapter 7

1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms

2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they

3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed

4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against

5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and

6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

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

These were some of the key religious figures of Sumeria, encompassing the An-Ki-Enlil legend, as well as the Enki-Enlil legend, and the famed Annunaki. In fact, they can be traced down to the Nephilim and Anakim Nephilim, the offspring of the fallen angels of biblical lore as well as Pseudepigraphical books like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Giants, and the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Bible refers to Nephilim as the Sons of God, translated this means ANGELS and not just any angels but FALLEN Angels. Zecharia Sitchin translates this fallen nature to mean "those who came from the sky to the earth", et.al, fell from the sky. These same were the Annunaki, later known as the devil and his angels. When they came to the Earth and defiled the human gene pool, they were eventually cast into a supernatural prison (the abyss, the pit) when Christ resurrected, and their first antediluvian hybrid offspring called the Nephilim and the Anakim were destroyed in the Flood by Elohiym.

If the ancient Sumerian tale were true, then Elohiym would've been imprisoning Himself and killing his own offspring. Or to put it in the Sumerian, the Enki [An and Ki] and Enlil would've been locking themselves up and bumping off their kids.

The stories of ancient Sumeria were not fables, they were real events, twisted into half truths and lies, perpetrated against humanity by "fallen" angels and their Nephilim offspring who saw humanity as a veritable smorgasboard. Gilgamesh is one of the Nephilim offspring of the Annunaki. The Nephilim were described as "heroes of old" based on popular stories and tales, thusly the scripture in Genesis 6: There were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.


The Enki or An and Ki, as CREATOR(s) gods, was the biggest problem of them all, since the only creating that took place was sex between angels and humans that resulted in the pollution of the human gene pool by angelic beings [or as Sitchin would have you believe, "Aliens"]. This is why it says Noah was perfect in his generations. His gene pool had not been polluted by the Annunaki. His family line was the only one that hadn't participated in the fallen angel orgy, as it were, from the time the Annunaki arrived on the planet. I propose to prove that An-Ki and Enlil [the Annunaki] didn't arrive on the planet at all until the sixth generation of Adam, after which they began to corrupt the human and animal genome and the planet as well.

And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn

Now if this wasn't enough to confuse you completely, let's move on to how this applies to the Flood story. The Ancient Sumerian Kings list is in fact the generations leading up to Noah from Adam.

1. Alulim (Adam)
2. Alalgar (Seth)
3. Kidunnu (Enosh)
4. Alimma (Kenan)
5. Enmenluanna (Mahalalel)
6. Dumuzi (Jared)
7. Ensipazianna (Enoch)
8. Enmenduranna (Methuselah)
9. Sukurlam (Lamech)
10. Ziusudra (Noah)

The introduction of the Annunaki (An and Enlil] to the human genome via Ki and Ninlil, did not occur until Jared's generation (see the 6th Sumerian King). This means An and Enlil and the other Sumerian gods are not the real Gods of Creation known as Elohiym, but the Annunaki fallen angels who descended to Earth during Jared's generation and really screwed things up. The story of the real God of Creation preceeded the Annunaki story by many, MANY years according to the ancient texts, in the days of Alulim (Adam), the first king of the Sumer city, Eridu.

Enlil has a particularly bad spot in the history books since his Sumerian appelation as the Princely god of the Air, is shared with only one other entity in scripture. I'll give you three guesses who that other entity is....

It isn't necessary to generate new archaeological evidence specific to Noah because he was the King of Shuruppak (a city of Sumer) when the Flood began. The evidence is already there! If you're looking at Sumer, you're looking at Noah's and his predecessors. But since I know you won't take my word for it, let's look at the bible again and go for a little walk over to ancient Egypt.

The New World Translation of Genesis 10: 10 discusses the story of Nimrod briefly:

10 And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Ba'bel and E'rech and Ac'cad and Cal'neh, in the land of Shi'nar.

The Akkadians called their predecessors Shukmerians, and spoke of the Land of Shumer.
"It was, in fact, the biblical Land of Shin'ar. It was the land whose name - Shumer - literally meant the Land of the Watchers to the ancient Egyptians. It was indeed the Egyptian Ta Neter - Land of the Watchers, the land from which the gods had come to Egypt. [Zecharia Sitchin, The Stairway to Heaven ]

The dictionary defines it thus:

Shinar

SYLLABICATION: Shi·nar
PRONUNCIATION: shnr, -när
In the Bible, a country on the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

In the Egyptian Book of the Dead there are prayers for deliverance from the Watchers (Tchatcha, the princes of Osiris) , who came from Ta-Ur, the "Far Away Land." [quoted ] Ta-Ur is Ur in Sumeria!

It's interesting to note here that the passage says "From which the gods had come to Egypt." Remember, the Annunaki [Sons of God - et.al. Angels, and in the case of the Annunaki, FALLEN angels] had not been imprisoned yet. Satan and his cohorts were still intermingling and interfering with the human species on a massive scale. Oh no, this was not over yet! The Flood had only succeeded in wiping out the Nephilim who had been born since the days of Jared, the battle was won but the war wasn't over.

Another interesting note is the fact the Egyptians felt they needed to be delivered FROM the gods of Sumeria who had come to their land. The egyptians were praying to be SAVED from Tchatcha, the princes of Osiris. Literally, they were praying for deliverance from the Sons of God - not deliverance BY - but FROM! What is wrong with this picture?! You're about to find out.

Right about now you might be asking yourself why would the Annunaki want to continue to manipulate humanity and the human gene pool? - Answer: Jesus' generations [genetics] had to be as pure as Noah's in order for his sacrifice to be legitimate and the Annunaki were not interested in the salvation of humanity, but the destruction of it. There could be no Annunaki blood in Jesus - he had to be completely human, genetically, but supernaturally a Son of God in order for his sacrifice to be perfect covering of human sins. His birth HAD to be the result of YHVH Elohiym's supernatural intervention and not the result of sexual relations between angelic beings and humans. What the original Sons of God (Annunaki) had botched up completely, Jesus was going to provide a permanent fixative for.

Anyway, back to Noah. According to the Sumerian tale, the boat comes to rest on Mt. Nimush, which is today Pir Omar Gudrun by Kirkuk, Iraq in the Kurdish region, a 9000 ft. mountain of the ELBURZ MOUNTAINS (or Alborz). Just a short way off from Pir Omar Gudrun you can see, Mt. Ararat. The entire mountain region was probably known in Noah's time by its highest peak, Mt. Ararat, which is 16946 ft, the tallest mountain in Turkey and among the tallest in the world.

After the flood, the Annunaki began their mischief anew. As a result the Nephilim sprung up once more and became affiliated with an entire branching network of genetically altered humans. Among these are the Rephaim (Weakeners), who are themselves the basis for the Vampire myths - these same are called the unresurrectable and the undead because their souls were unresurrectable, whereas humans were resurrectable provided they didn't intermingle with the Annunaki or their offspring Nephilim. The Gibborim, giant Heroes, such as Goliath and the race of Philistines, are also of the Nephilim.

Today, most UFO-ologists refer to the Annunaki as Aliens and claim that the Annunaki are once again loose on the planet, wreaking genetic havoc on our race by abducting women and impregnating them with hybrids. This is, in reality, demonic abductions carried out by the Annunaki. But why? Jesus has already beaten the rap for the human race, there's no battle left to win ....or is there?

Establishing the Timeframe for the arrival of the Annunaki to the Earth.

Two major events happened simultaneously -

1) Human civilization sprung up across the globe
2) The Annunaki arrive on the planet.

According to our current dating methods, the earliest civilization was in Sumer (Sumeria, Shinar, Land of the Watchers). It was here that the Annunaki first descended to the planet. Not much later other civilizations sprung up almost immediately and simultaneously in various places:

The Antediluvian Timetable of Mesopatamian Civilization

Ubaid 5000-3500 B.C.
Uruk 3500-3100 B.C.
Jemdet Nasr 3100-2900 B.C. [b] Annunaki arrive
Early Dynastic I-III 2900-2350 B.C.

The Antediluvian Timetable of Ancient Egyptian Civilization:

Predynastic until 3000 Annunaki arrive
Archaic 3000 -- 2700
OLD KINGDOM 2700 -- 2200

The Antediluvian Timetable of Nubia Civilization:

3000 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The Antediluvian Timetable of Chinese Civilization:

2637 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The Antediluvian Timetable of Indian (India) Civilization:

3000 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The key word here is civilization. Prior to this time, humans were pretty much nomadic and uncivilized. With the influx of the Annunaki, we were taught the practices of warfare, medicine, weaponry, magic, architecture, writing, languages, religion, etc. What had once been a fairly uneventful and sedate life of food gathering and wandering, turned into a complex, organized system of cities with libraries and alphabets and languages and astrological charts, etc. The ancient Sumerians had established not just a language, but a specialized language - one for males, one for females. You had to learn, not just one language, but two, in order to communicate with one another.

This occured, as you can see from the above Antediluvian Timetables, almost simultaneously in places that were separated from each other by thousands of miles. As I indicated in the Circle of the Earth thread, it occured in a ring around the entire planet, along which not only did civilization and writing spring up, but various MAJOR religions did as well. The world's first known written languages, Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneiform, were also developed along this line of ancient sites. The Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Brahman and Buddhist religions, as well as ancient Egyptian and Peruvian religions, also sprang up along this line.

http://futureprometheus.com/word/wallaz.gif

The Book of Enoch outlines this sudden arrival of civilization:

http://futureprometheus.com/word/bookofenoch2.html

[Solly]

While I think there might be a demonic connection, i tend to the view that it is hallucinatory. Alledged abductions have been linked with sleep paralysis delusion - I might have had one myself, though not the AA version.

The aliens we now see pictured everywhere are just too spooky to be real - bug eyes, sexless bodies, oversize heads etc. Their intentions, seemingly random and mindless assaults on humans is also symptomatic of our culture. If this is what alien life is like, then it sucks.

[Undomiel]

What's the AA version?

[Solly]

AA = Alien Abduction

I had the MDIMB version

MDIMB = Malevolent demon in my bedroom

[DunnySaze]

This thread is apparently supposed to be a Q&A type format, but you didn't actually ask any questions, so I'll just limit myself for now to a brief comment or two.

It's apparent you have done a great deal to study this subject in detail, whereas I am a neophyte. However, I was struck by your use of 2 authors I'm somewhat familiar with, Zecharia Sitchin and Erich Von Daniken, more so with the latter.

I have read von Danekin's books and find his case to be less than compelling. His entire thesis seems to rest upon the assumption that ancient peoples were either too ignorant or too unimaginative to do the things they were purported to have done, and so must have gotten some help. I find this idea somewhat bigoted. I see a great deal of rampant and reckless speculation, but very little hard evidence beyond his incredulity that they could have done these things. I saw a documentary once where he was asked to explain the many flaws in his book, Chariots of the Gods? His response was to shrug and simply point to the question mark in the title. He was merely asking a question it seems, it wasn't his problem if others thought he was reaching a conclusion. Very shoddy stuff. In Sitchin's case he seems to be basing his case mostly on his reading of Sumerian cuneiform, a reading practically no other scholar agrees with.

Also, your globe with civilizations pointed out looks rather contrived to me. The line for example actually misses the Chinese and Nubean civiliations entirely. Others ancient civilizations like the Mayans are ignored completely.

[Undomiel]

Dunny,

I don't know much about the line of sacred sites theory, but I did look up the timeline for Mayan civilization and it's being listed as

3,114 BC -- Mayan year 0, zero or beginning of time according to the Maya.

So though they don't fall on the line of sacred sites, they seem to achieve civilization in the same time frame. Here's the website where I got the information for the line of sacred sites [it goes off into left field after awhile, so be warned]

http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/index.html

I also extracted some information for the topic of Sumer, Enoch, Aliens, Annunaki and the bible from:

http://alienresistance.org
http://www.theology.edu/sumer.htm
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199604/0281.html
http://www.flood-myth.com/ages.htm
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SUMER.htm
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr223.htm
http://www.mazzaroth.com/TableOfNations/TableOfNations.htm
http://home.nycap.rr.com/foxmob/sumer_pantheon03.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/ufos.html

And I did ask a question: So this is where we are currently at. What's your position on this complex issue?

[AtheistArchon]

- *sigh*

- The posted info on the validity of the Noachian flood is a repost, and has little, if anything, to do with UFO stories. But back to the topic...

- Heh. No, I'm sorry. I just don't have anything really useful to say to a person who believes in UFO's but that they're biblical demons. It's just too far over the top for me. Enjoy your demons.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133134#post133134)
AtheistArchon:

- *sigh*

- The posted info on the validity of the Noachian flood is a repost, and has little, if anything, to do with UFO stories. But back to the topic...

- Heh. No, I'm sorry. I just don't have anything really useful to say to a person who believes in UFO's but that they're biblical demons. It's just too far over the top for me. Enjoy your demons.

You try really hard to be demeaning to me, but if you've not noticed, I don't respond in kind. At some point, do you think you'll finally be able to talk to me like a normal human being or do I have to meet your standards first?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133118#post133118)
Undomiel:

Dunny,

I don't know much about the line of sacred sites theory, but I did look up the timeline for Mayan civilization and it's being listed as

3,114 BC -- Mayan year 0, zero or beginning of time according to the Maya.

So though they don't fall on the line of sacred sites, they seem to achieve civilization in the same time frame. Here's the website where I got the information for the line of sacred sites [it goes off into left field after awhile, so be warned]

http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/index.html

I also extracted some information for the topic of Sumer, Enoch, Aliens, Annunaki and the bible from:

http://alienresistance.org
http://www.theology.edu/sumer.htm
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199604/0281.html
http://www.flood-myth.com/ages.htm
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm
http://54.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SU/SUMER.htm
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr223.htm
http://www.mazzaroth.com/TableOfNations/TableOfNations.htm
http://home.nycap.rr.com/foxmob/sumer_pantheon03.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/ufos.html

And I did ask a question: So this is where we are currently at. What's your position on this complex issue?

Ah, I saw the question, but thought that was a rhetorical device. That you were asking yourself a question to answer it. My apology.

This posting covers several different and diverse topics, religion, ancient history and UFO's, and how human psychology can meld these desparate facets into a comprehensible, but in my view mistaken, whole.

On the topic of UFO's, especially the modern view of them. I think it's clear there is no credible evidence that these exist. When I say UFO's I'm not talking about objects in the sky that are simply unidentified, of course those exist. I'm talking about UFO's as alien craft from another planet or dimension. There is no physical or testimonial proof today that could not be explained by other, more mundane processess. Since this is a extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence. Many people claim to have been abducted for instance, but are such claims evidence of real abductions, or are these people interpreting something else that happened to them as an abduction? There is no proof they are real. No alien technology that we don't have. No knowledge that we don't already know that can be confirmed.

Considering the line drawn through the sacred sites on the globe. Be very careful of drawing conclusions from such exercises. Ask yourself why these sites were chosen. Why pick sites that are relatively obscure like Tassili n' Ajjer (cave art) and ignore others better known (e.g. Lasceaux, also cave art)? Why is Stonehenge ignored in favor of Ollantaytambo? Why is the small city of Petra there, but not the huge city of Tenochtitlán? If all 'sacred sites' were pinpointed on the map, would this linearity seem as amazing? Take a handful of 100 pennies and strew them about a table. Look carefully and you'll see patterns, some quite remakable. I would always be cautious when drawing lessons from patterns.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133270#post133270)
DunnySaze:


On the topic of UFO's, especially the modern view of them. I think it's clear there is no credible evidence that these exist.

On the contrary, there is plenty of credible evidence, such as myriad eyewitness accounts by well-educated, rational, intelligent human beings. The assumptions are that physical evidence is being withheld for social and religious reasons - et. al, some UFO-ologists believe if the government produced its physical evidence of life on other planets and UFOs, it would cause wide-spread panic, religious and social upheaveal of great magnitude.

However, I don't believe there is physical evidence because I don't believe they are currently manifesting physically, in the normal sense of the word. This is why they take on the appearance the viewer is expecting to see. They might be interdimensional, as in spiritually interdimensional, but most alien visitation that accompanies abduction is almost always fear-laden, nightmarish, involving intense pain and horrific. This is not to say I think they are incapable of "materializing" because that would be unscriptural and historically incorrect. The angels [Sons of God] were capable of not only material embodiment, but physical functions such as reproduction.


When I say UFO's I'm not talking about objects in the sky that are simply unidentified, of course those exist. I'm talking about UFO's as alien craft from another planet or dimension. There is no physical or testimonial proof today that could not be explained by other, more mundane processess. Since this is a extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.

It isn't an extraordinary claim, which is why this issue is just becoming more and more intense. With the advent of mass communication, democracy, scientific thought, advanced technology, etc, the frequency of these sightings and reports of abductions points dramatically to their authenticity.

For example, without the means to travel to other planets ourselves, we could not imagine alien life being able to do the same. Once that barrier was crossed, it then became a matter of the possibility of alien life on other planets.

To quote Dr. Michio Kaku [physicist, superstring theory] in an interview with ABC News,

Michio Kaku at 2:14pm ET
Professor Frank Drake estimated forty years ago that there might be about ten thousand planets in our galaxy with intelligent life. Carl Sagan re-did Drake's calculation, and estimated perhaps millions of planets may have intelligent life forms.
Since then, new data indicate that the conditions for life are much rarer in our galaxy than previously thought. Life in the galaxy must meet a stringent set of conditions, so stringent that perhaps only a few hundred planets in the galaxy have intelligent life.
However, there are trillions of other galaxies, so, therefore, I believe that the probability of other intelligent life forms in the Universe is nearly 100%.

With that problem out of the way it then became an issue of technology - how advanced might the other civilizations be. And how, if they evolved from the same big bang as we have, they could be anymore evolved than we are. The likelihood of having a visitation across lightyears of space, by a culture that had been given the same amount of years to reach the ability to "Drill holes" in space, was the only real drawback to alien life and UFOs being accepted across the whole of the scientific community.

So we are encouraged by popular media, at least half the scientific community and frequent eyewitness accounts to accept the reality and/or high probability of UFOs and alien life but no way to establish it emperically. The problem is, without modern physical evidence [we already have alot of old and ancient evidence], it can't be established for the skeptic. This frustrates the believers and those who have experienced and had encounters with UFOs and aliens, to no end. Thus we have conspiracy theories that the information is being deliberately withheld by the government. That should come as no surprise considering the plethora of evidence we've had through the millenia, and now since science and scientists have started jumping on the bandwagon, this lends immense credibility but without emperical satisfaction.

I think the reason it isn't emperically satisfied is because its demonic in origin and cannot materialize until and if the time arrives for it to play its role in prophecy and apocalypse. These events when combined together point to one thing - we are being prepared on a massive scale to accept the possibility, even in light of the fact extra-terrestrial civilizations have had the same amount of time as us to develop - lessening the likelihood of their ability to defy the laws of physics and travel here rapidly and repeatedly.

Also at issue is the way these aliens and UFOs are modified by our subconscious minds and the media. If they were honestly interested in our welfare, why would they spend so much time trying to bring us physical pain and uncompromising fear.

Considering the line drawn through the sacred sites on the globe. Be very careful of drawing conclusions from such exercises. Ask yourself why these sites were chosen. Why pick sites that are relatively obscure like Tassili n' Ajjer (cave art) and ignore others better known ([i]e.g. Lasceaux, also cave art)? Why is Stonehenge ignored in favor of Ollantaytambo? Why is the small city of Petra there, but not the huge city of Tenochtitlán? If all 'sacred sites' were pinpointed on the map, would this linearity seem as amazing? Take a handful of 100 pennies and strew them about a table. Look carefully and you'll see patterns, some quite remakable. I would always be cautious when drawing lessons from patterns.

I believe those sites were chosen for the theory because of the religions that sprang up along them, all of them were or are currently major world religions - some of which had their beginnings waaaaay back at the beginnings of their civilizations and have never died down since and some of which have since died but influenced the nations for thousands of years (such as ancient Egypt). I also think the theory had its beginnings with the Great Pyramid. It is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. I think the guy who developed the original theory started measuring from the Great Pyramid, and he found the religion connection immediately by connecting the dots between Cairo, Petra, and Ur, etc.

[DunnySaze]

Yesterday @ 08:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133374#post133374)
Undomiel:



On the contrary, there is plenty of credible evidence, such as myriad eyewitness accounts by well-educated, rational, intelligent human beings. The assumptions are that physical evidence is being withheld for social and religious reasons - et. al, some UFO-ologists believe if the government produced its physical evidence of life on other planets and UFOs, it would cause wide-spread panic, religious and social upheaveal of great magnitude.

I must respectfully disagree. I understand that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to this effect, but such evidence, while suggestive, is of very little probative value. There are many reasons for this. Most sightings for example are natural phenomena. Objects such as meteors, disintegrating satellites, flocks of birds, aircraft, lights, weather balloons, stars, planets, even clouds have been mistaken as UFO’s.

There are many blurry photographs, some identified as frauds, some as film imperfections, and none really clear. The main evidence is the testimony of witnesses. Sometimes we can’t explain what the object was. But should we conclude it was a UFO, or simply say we don’t have enough information to say what it was? The latter seems more reasonable.

Although some claims are clearly fraudulent, note that I don’t think they ALL are. I do believe that many people have seen something, and that they really think it may be a UFO, but this is not evidence that it was one. Intelligence or credibility has nothing to do with it. Even intelligent people can be mistaken in their interpretation as to what something was. Education does not prevent one from falling victim to delusions. Anyone can fool themselves, especially when unfamiliar with observing the sky.
Both the U.S. Air Force report Project Blue Book, and the Condon report concluded after detailed study that there was no evidence to suggest that UFO’s contain aliens of any kind. Of all the sightings studied, 98% were identified to a specific mundane cause. In the other 2%, there was not enough evidence to reach a conclusion either way.

You are certainly correct in saying that some UFO-ologists believe the government is covering up. But there is also no proof of a government cover-up, other than a general mistrust of the government given that it has lied in the past. I.e., there is no specific credible evidence they are lying in this case.

However, I don't believe there is physical evidence because I don't believe they are currently manifesting physically, in the normal sense of the word. This is why they take on the appearance the viewer is expecting to see. They might be interdimensional, as in spiritually interdimensional, but most alien visitation that accompanies abduction is almost always fear-laden, nightmarish, involving intense pain and horrific. This is not to say I think they are incapable of "materializing" because that would be unscriptural and historically incorrect. The angels [Sons of God] were capable of not only material embodiment, but physical functions such as reproduction.

If they are not manifesting physicality, then how can they interact with the physical world? If the viewer can see them, or to show any other kind of interaction with the physical world, they must be exhibiting physicality of some sort. If it’s not possible to show they exist, even in principle, isn’t that the same as not existing at all?

It isn't an extraordinary claim, which is why this issue is just becoming more and more intense. With the advent of mass communication, democracy, scientific thought, advanced technology, etc, the frequency of these sightings and reports of abductions points dramatically to their authenticity.

I think aliens from space or interdimensional travelers is a MOST extraordinary claim. Given for example that we have no evidence for life anywhere except on Earth. I see no evidence that such claims are increasing in frequency, but even so, this would be still more anecdotal evidence of the kind already known not to be demonstrative in and of itself. Popularity doesn't corespond to evidence.

For example, without the means to travel to other planets ourselves, we could not imagine alien life being able to do the same. Once that barrier was crossed, it then became a matter of the possibility of alien life on other planets.

I’d say we can imagine it some of the difficulties of interplanetary travel, but we can’t imagine how exactly they could do it. But we simply can’t assume that because something might be theoretically possible, that it happened. We’d still need the independent evidence that it did happen.

With that problem out of the way it then became an issue of technology - how advanced might the other civilizations be. And how, if they evolved from the same big bang as we have, they could be anymore evolved than we are. The likelihood of having a visitation across lightyears of space, by a culture that had been given the same amount of years to reach the ability to "Drill holes" in space, was the only real drawback to alien life and UFOs being accepted across the whole of the scientific community.

But there is a big difference between calculating the odds of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy and having that life visit Earth. I’d say that if they exist, they are almost certainly more technically advanced. But the only real drawback to accepting UFO’s as alien visitors is not in the difficulty of them getting here, it’s that there is no compelling evidence for them having been here in the first place, or for existing at all. a probability calculation is only as good as the assumptions put in, and we really don't know the proper assumptions.

So we are encouraged by popular media, at least half the scientific community [if not more] and frequent eyewitness accounts to accept the reality and/or high probability of UFOs and alien life but no way to establish it emperically. The problem is, without modern physical evidence [we already have alot of old and ancient evidence], it can't be established for the skeptic. This frustrates the believers and those who have experienced and had encounters with UFOs and aliens, to no end. Thus we have conspiracy theories that the information is being deliberately withheld by the government. That should come as no surprise considering the plethora of evidence we've had through the millenia, and now since science and scientists have started jumping on the bandwagon, this lends immense credibility but without emperical satisfaction.

Popular media. Yes. They have encouraged us. The scientific community, I’d say a big NO, not to their existing, but to their coming here. You should also know that for every scientist who calculates the odds of other life-forms is 100%, you can find one who calculates it at 0%. That’s how these calculations work. It’s near certainty they exist, or near certainty they don’t, depending on the equation and numbers used. But such calculations are not evidence of their existence or non-existence. I agree we have no modern physical evidence, but I disagree we have ancient evidence. We have ancient artifacts that have interpreted in a way that concurs with a pre-accepted belief in aliens in my opinion.

I think the reason it isn't emperically satisfied is because its demonic in origin and cannot materialize until and if the time arrives for it to play its role in prophecy and apocalypse. These events when combined together point to one thing - we are being prepared on a massive scale to accept the possibility, even in light of the fact extra-terrestrial civilizations have had the same amount of time as us to develop - lessening the likelihood of their ability to defy the laws of physics and travel here rapidly and repeatedly.

I can’t speak on that. Just to say the fact the evidence is not there doesn’t necessarily mean that it was there and has disappeared somehow. It could just as well mean it never existed in the first place, the simpler explanation to my mind.

Also at issue is the way these aliens and UFOs are modified by our subconscious minds and the media. If they were honestly interested in our welfare, why would they spend so much time trying to bring us physical pain and uncompromising fear.

Are you talking about the aliens or the media?

I believe those sites were chosen for the theory because of the religions that sprang up along them, all of them were or are currently major world religions - some of which had their beginnings waaaaay back at the beginnings of their civilizations and have never died down since and some of which have since died but influenced the nations for thousands of years (such as ancient Egypt).

But what is the major religion on Easter Island? Why not pick some ruins in Jerusalem, arguably the center of not 1 or 2, but 3 major religions? No Shinto shrines? There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the sites chosen, other than that these particular ones lie in a neat line (I’m assuming this is correct, although consider these sites are areas, not points as implied). They are spread out all over time, from Tassili n’ Ajjer, 6000 B.C. to the Khmer temples of 1200 A.D. The fact is, there are such sacred sites all over the human occupied world that could have bee picked. These particular ones happen to fall in a line. I fail to see what the point of this is supposed to be.

I also think the theory had its beginnings with the Great Pyramid. It is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europa, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. I think the guy who developed the original theory started measuring from the Great Pyramid, and he found the religion connection immediately by connecting the dots between Cairo, Petra, and Ur, etc.

Once again I would caution about drawing conclusions from spurious correlations. Given the large number of sites world-wide and the large number of factors one could consider as significant, it seems obvious to me that by somewhere you’re going to find what appear to be fantastic coincidences. An example is the so-called Bible Code.

Consider for instance the statement that the 30 degree latitude line crosses the most land. But wouldn’t this have also been equally amazing if it had crossed exactly half land and half ocean, or the proportion of land to ocean as the pyramids height is to it’s width, or many other relationships? Interesting numerical relationships will inevitably crop up if you look hard enough. The question is, are they meaningful?

[Undomiel]

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134197#post134197)
DunnySaze:


If they are not manifesting physicality, then how can they interact with the physical world? If the viewer can see them, or to show any other kind of interaction with the physical world, they must be exhibiting physicality of some sort. If it’s not possible to show they exist, even in principle, isn’t that the same as not existing at all?

As I said, if they are of demonic and angelic origin, proving they exist could be as difficult as proving miracles happen or that Jesus was the Messiah or the exorcism was/is legitimate, etc.


I think aliens from space or interdimensional travelers is a MOST extraordinary claim.

Well this would be where we part company on the subject - primarily because I tend to believe these people are having real encounters, I'm just a bit concerned about what those encounters are when the abductee talks of torture and fear.

Given for example that we have no evidence for life anywhere except on Earth.

We see no evidence? Again, this is only partially true. YOU see no evidence. But for those who have seen evidence, they believe it.


Popularity doesn't corespond to evidence.

I agree but then I was told that Gallop polls that indicate people with higher educations are less likely to believe in God and creationism. So I checked it out for UFOs and people with higher educations were just as likely to believe in UFOs as those without higher educations.

We’d still need the independent evidence that it did happen.

For the people it happens to, they have all the independent evidence they need. Whatever you do, don't start asking it to happen so it can be proven to you. It'd be much better if you were going to ask for the unbelievable to happen, to ask Jesus to come into your life instead.

But there is a big difference between calculating the odds of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy and having that life visit Earth.

I agree, but then I don't believe it's alien, I believe it's demonic.


Are you talking about the aliens or the media?

Aliens. Some UFO fans believe these aliens are a higher order of life that will come to earth and make our lives better, pleasant, happy, more advanced. If this were ultimately the case, they certainly wouldn't have started off their relationship with humans with torture and fear. If anything, they'd be more likely interested in finding more ways to torture people instead of less.


But what is the major religion on Easter Island?
Why not pick some ruins in Jerusalem, arguably the center of not 1 or 2, but 3 major religions? No Shinto shrines? There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the sites chosen, other than that these particular ones lie in a neat line (I’m assuming this is correct, although consider these sites are areas, not points as implied). They are spread out all over time, from Tassili n’ Ajjer, 6000 B.C. to the Khmer temples of 1200 A.D. The fact is, there are such sacred sites all over the human occupied world that could have bee picked. These particular ones happen to fall in a line. I fail to see what the point of this is supposed to be.

I don't know if all the sites are even necessary to prove the point. If he only selected those which inspired an ancient religion, that'd be enough. The Jerusalem example would only be relevant for christianity, since judaism, initially, started in Sumer [thusly the Ur example]. Japan doesn't appear to have been visited by the Annunaki. At least, not as can be documented. The closest example I've found with them so far is: Mythological Jimmu ("Divine Warrior"), descendant of sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami, founds empire.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 07:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134286#post134286)
Undomiel:



As I said, if they are of demonic and angelic origin, proving they exist could be as difficult as proving miracles happen or that Jesus was the Messiah or the exorcism was/is legitimate, etc.

But they obviously interact with humans in some physical way, so shouldn't they leave some tangible evidence behind other than personal accounts? I would think so.


Well this would be where we part company on the subject - primarily because I tend to believe these people are having real encounters, I'm just a bit concerned about what those encounters are when the abductee talks of torture and fear.

I also believe these people are having real encounters, the outright fruads excepted, which I expect to be in the great minority. The question is not that they didn't experience something, it's that what exactly this experience was. Some may interpret the experience as an alien abduction for example, becuase they have heard of others who have had similar experiences which were interpreted that way.

I stress again this has nothing to do with intellegence or trustworthiness. An intelligent person is still a person, and subject to deluding himself like any other. A trustworthy person may be incorrect in his interpretation, even while honestly believing in it. The very similarity of alien abductions for example tends to suggest they are the products of the same alien encounter, more or less, repeated over and over.

We see no evidence? Again, this is only partially true. YOU see no evidence. But for those who have seen evidence, they believe it.

They have an interpretation of an experience. It may be 'evidence' to them.

I agree but then I was told that Gallop polls that indicate people with higher educations are less likely to believe in God and creationism. So I checked it out for UFOs and people with higher educations were just as likely to believe in UFOs as those without higher educations.

Polls prove little except popularity of a given topic.

For the people it happens to, they have all the independent evidence they need. Whatever you do, don't start asking it to happen so it can be proven to you. It'd be much better if you were going to ask for the unbelievable to happen, to ask Jesus to come into your life instead.

I don't doubt the experience is traumatic. But this doesn't validate it.

Aliens. Some UFO fans believe these aliens are a higher order of life that will come to earth and make our lives better, pleasant, happy, more advanced. If this were ultimately the case, they certainly wouldn't have started off their relationship with humans with torture and fear. If anything, they'd be more likely interested in finding more ways to torture people instead of less.

I'd like to think that if aliens ever do come, they'll be beneign. If they want to kill us, there's probably not much we can do about it.

I don't know if all the sites are even necessary to prove the point. If he only selected those which inspired an ancient religion, that'd be enough. The Jerusalem example would only be relevant for christianity, since judaism, initially, started in Sumer [thusly the Ur example]. Japan doesn't appear to have been visited by the Annunaki. At least, not as can be documented. The closest example I've found with them so far is: Mythological Jimmu ("Divine Warrior"), descendant of sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami, founds empire.

I see no reason to say these sites 'inspired' ancient religions. Some came about after the religion was already there. Others have no known significance, only possibly religious. Islam started in Mecca, not Petra for instance.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 08:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134378#post134378)
DunnySaze:



But they obviously interact with humans in some physical way, so shouldn't they leave some tangible evidence behind other than personal accounts? I would think so.

Some have objects supposedly extracted from their bodies, that they claim were implanted in them during their abductions. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.


I see no reason to say these sites 'inspired' ancient religions. Some came about after the religion was already there. Others have no known significance, only possibly religious. Islam started in Mecca, not Petra for instance.

The list he gave: The Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Brahman and Buddhist religions, as well as ancient Egyptian and Peruvian religions. I'm guessing he's referring to Petra for the christian religion, rather than the muslim one, but it's only marginally connected. The muslim connection appears to be general area, related. But the ones that interested me in the list were: Judaism, Hinduism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Egyptian, and (what did the ancient peruvians worship? Cause those Nazca lines are freaky. http://www.crystalinks.com/nasca.html

[dawnghost]

*subscribing to this thread*


I'll have to read more about this later :read:

[Undomiel]

Side note:

For any who were thinking that angelic beings could not have sex because it says in Heaven there is no marriage or giving in marriage, realize that the bible also says in Jude:

VERSE 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Of special interest here is "kept not their first estate but left their own habitation," which ties these angels directly into the story of the Sons of God mating with human females. They did not marry IN HEAVEN, but they certainly did the wild thang on earth, which earned them the proverbial boot out of the heavenlies.

[dawnghost]

06-26-2003 @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133039#post133039)
Solly:

AA = Alien Abduction

I had the MDIMB version

MDIMB = Malevolent demon in my bedroom


Could you share that experience please?

[Undomiel]

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136727#post136727)
dawnghost:




Could you share that experience please?

I didn't want to ask him to unless he felt lead to do so. What do you say, Solly?

[Warcraft3]

Of special interest here is "kept not their first estate but left their own habitation," which ties these angels directly into the story of the Sons of God mating with human females. They did not marry IN HEAVEN, but they certainly did the wild thang on earth, which earned them the proverbial boot out of the heavenlies.

Angels having sex with human females? That seems rather unlikely to me. They are beings who are fundamentally different, and I do not think they would have any reason (or desire) for interacting with humans in this manner. I am not even sure if they would be capable of doing so.

Russ

[Undomiel]

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136774#post136774)
steadele:



Angels having sex with human females? That seems rather unlikely to me. They are beings who are fundamentally different, and I do not think they would have any reason (or desire) for interacting with humans in this manner. I am not even sure if they would be capable of doing so.

Russ

Did you read the thread, Russ? These are not ideas plucked from the air, most of it is based entirely in the bible and some of it is elaborated upon in Hebrew Pseudepigrapha. Yes, the sons of God (translated bene Elohim - "Angels") came down to earth and had sex with the daughters of men.

Genesis 6:

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The "sons of God," is always translated in the Old Testament to mean "Angels." These are the angels Jude speaks about saying,

VERSE 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

These same were known as Lucifer and his angels and later, after they left their first estate, Satan and his demons.

[Warcraft3]

Did you read the thread, Russ? These are not ideas plucked from the air, most of it is based entirely in the bible and some of it is elaborated upon in Hebrew Pseudepigrapha. Yes, the sons of God (translated bene Elohim - "Angels") came down to earth and had sex with the daughters of men.
Yes, I did read the thread. You have some interesting ideas and make some compelling points, but the idea of angels wanting to have sex with human females does not make sense to me. And the idea of them having offspring seems to be an impossibility to me.

Genesis 6:

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The "sons of God," is always translated in the Old Testament to mean "Angels." These are the angels Jude speaks about saying,

VERSE 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
I am aware of the scriptural arguments in support of this view. I do not think that angels came and had sex with humans or that they had children. I am still unsure as to exactly what is going in these verses, but I do not think angels having sex and then having children is a likely explanation.


As a side note.....I do think you did a good job putting together your argument in the opening post.:thumb:


Russ

[Undomiel]

Today @ 06:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136799#post136799)
steadele:


Yes, I did read the thread. You have some interesting ideas and make some compelling points, but the idea of angels wanting to have sex with human females does not make sense to me. And the idea of them having offspring seems to be an impossibility to me.


I am aware of the scriptural arguments in support of this view. I do not think that angels came and had sex with humans or that they had children. I am still unsure as to exactly what is going in these verses, but I do not think angels having sex and then having children is a likely explanation.


As a side note.....I do think you did a good job putting together your argument in the opening post.:thumb:


Russ


Err, what do you think it means if it doesn't mean what it means?

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136813#post136813)
Undomiel:




Err, what do you think it means if it doesn't mean what it means?

I do not know. To be honest, I have really not given this particular passage as much thought or time as I have other issues. I have debated/discussed it only a handful of times with people and am still unsure as to exactly what is going on here.

As to the ufo issue............

I think most ufos are explainable, but I do see a few that are more difficult to explain. Since many of these "ufos" seem to be defying the laws of physics I do not believe they are physical objects. If they are real phenomonen (did I spell that right?) then they must be of some spiritual origin.

There may be other life out there, but they are not flying around abducting people. They are probably looking up wondering if there is anyone else out there and discussing it on their own internet forums.

Russ

[Undomiel]

Okay, essentially what happened was, we humans were made in the image of God. Angels were also creations of God. They were called the sons of God in the Old Testament. Some of the angels rebelled and left their first estate, left their habitation in Heaven. When it says "giants" it refers to Nephilim or fallen ones, in the verse 4:

Genesis 6:

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

These children of the sons of God having sex with the daughters of men, were very strange, as is evidenced from the definition of "mighty men"

gibbowr
ghib-bore'
or (shortened) gibbor {ghib-bore'}; intensive from the same as 'geber' (1397); powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant:-- champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

Two passages here keep pointing back to giant, powerful offspring. These were also called "Fallen ones" because of the translation of the word "Naphal" from which the word for "giants" ["Nephilim"] was translated "

nphiyl
nef-eel'
or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 'naphal' (5307); properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

naphal
naw-fal'
a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 'palal' (6419)), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

The Book of Enoch [the early one, not the Book of Secrets addition later on - which I think is bunk], which was an accepted Hebrew text in some circles before the ecumenical councils constructed our present day bibles, discusses this same subject in more detail. In fact, passages from the Book of Enoch are mentioned several times in scripture by apostles and disciples.

How all this is relevant begins with the passage that says

Genesis 6:

9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

Noah was PERFECT in his generations. He doesn't mean Noah was a perfect man, if he had, Jesus would not have been necessary. He means Noah's seed was not polluted with the DNA of the fallen angels - the Annunaki - his offspring were not "Nephilim" - he didn't follow the false gods (the sons of God, the fallen angels). This was important because Jesus needed to be fully human in order for his sacrifice to be the perfect covering for human sin, thusly you see a race between the fallen angels to destroy the human genome and the holy angels of God to preserve the line of HUMAN DNA till the birth of Jesus - who would be fully human but supernaturally God, rather than the result of a human having sex with an angelic being, creating a hybrid Nephilim. All the events of the Old Testament lead up to this one pivotal moment in humankind's history - the Messiah.

[David O]

I agree about the Gen6 passage being angels marrying human women. I also believe that this is why women are supposed to cover their heads with a sign of authority when they pray. Some angels are evil (1/3 of them) so I want my daughters marked as being under my authority when they address heaven. I've had to deal with foreign beings in my house bothering my children. Jesus used to beat up my son in his dreams. It wasn't the real (God in the flesh) Jesus, but it did a great impersonation for my son. Nice at first, then mean later, the good cop, bad cop routine. The UFO stuff could be those same spirits, look what they were capable of in the Moses and Pharoah story.

If you're having trouble with angels having sex, remember that the men in Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels that visited Lot.

[Warcraft3]

Undomiel:

I have colored certain sections in blue that I wish to specifically address.....

Noah was PERFECT in his generations. He doesn't mean Noah was a perfect man, if he had, Jesus would not have been necessary. He means Noah's seed was not polluted with the DNA of the fallen angels - the Annunaki - his offspring were not "Nephilim" - he didn't follow the false gods (the sons of God, the fallen angels). This was important because Jesus needed to be fully human in order for his sacrifice to be the perfect covering for human sin, thusly you see a race between the fallen angels to destroy the human genome and the holy angels of God to preserve the line of HUMAN DNA till the birth of Jesus - who would be fully human but supernaturally God, rather than the result of a human having sex with an angelic being, creating a hybrid Nephilim. All the events of the Old Testament lead up to this one pivotal moment in humankind's history - the Messiah.

DNA of fallen angels? How can angels have DNA similiar to ours, much less be able to produce offspring through intercourse?

With regard to the human DNA preservation......You are constructing a rather general perspective here from very little scripture indeed. I think we should be cautious here......I would think these things would be mentioned more in scripture since what you are describing is rather fundamental to the whole salvation issue. But there is little mention of the struggle or race that you are referring to within scripture. This makes me somewhat skeptical of the viewpoint.

How does a hybrid between an angel and human come about? Angels are not physical beings like we are, so how can they have children?


Russ

[JCA]

HI :smile:

I read the intro post, and agree that it is very well thought out, and does raise some interesting questions. However, besides what some people believe, there really isn't any evidence that proves we have been visited by 'aliens'.. let alone mis-represented Angels.

There are plenty of stories, and anecdotes, and 'supposed' artifacts.. but none have ever panned out as being 'alien'.

A good place to look for information that either refutes, or at least logically questions what you have put, is here:

http://www.skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html

It is worth reading the whole thing, and the links from it; just as your information was worth reading.


To me, there is no need for these things to be done, by Angels or Demons, and so I question the idea that it is so.. especially today. Obviously, I have no way to address what may or may not have happened in Biblical times when it comes to such things, only the information that we have present day.

It falls back to questions such as: What would the DNA of such a union be like? Would the child 'know' they where a cross-breed? Would that child have any 'angelic' powers? etc..

And the logical conclusions that would then come from this.. IF it was true, at least in the present day, then we would have a lot of Angel offspring running around.. they would be different fro regular Man (no seed of Adam, no first sin etc.).. and they would inherently know that God and Satan existed, and would require no faith.. I can go on and on with the problems that such unions would bring. Would these children have the same type of 'soul' as us? It goes on and on..

Basically, I do not find there is enough actual evidence to support either Alien UFO's, or Angelic abductions - in the present day. :smile: Doesn't mean I'm right though..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

PS - Another thought: I do not think it is good to think about it in such a way either.. it then begs the question of why could it not be that indeed there are no Angels or God, and it has ALL been done by "aliens" and UFO's... it jst creates more confusion than actually clearing anything up.. IMHO. L&P.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136850#post136850)
David O:

I agree about the Gen6 passage being angels marrying human women. I also believe that this is why women are supposed to cover their heads with a sign of authority when they pray. Some angels are evil (1/3 of them) so I want my daughters marked as being under my authority when they address heaven.
I am not sure what connection you are making here. Please elaborate on this statement.


I've had to deal with foreign beings in my house bothering my children. Jesus used to beat up my son in his dreams. It wasn't the real (God in the flesh) Jesus, but it did a great impersonation for my son. Nice at first, then mean later, the good cop, bad cop routine.
Is it possible that these were just dreams and were not due to direct demonic influence? I am always a bit on the skeptical side when people speak of spiritual experiences (whether it is a good one or a bad one). I have had a few "not so nice" encounters myself, but they were few and were very specific. So what leads you to conclude these dreams were due to some demonic presence?

The UFO stuff could be those same spirits, look what they were capable of in the Moses and Pharoah story.
Same spirits? Do you mean demonic spirits in general or are you referring to specific demonic spirits?

If you're having trouble with angels having sex, remember that the men in Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels that visited Lot.
Well, I am not convinced that the men even knew they were angels in the first place. Besides that, even if they did know they were angels, just because some evil men wanted to have sex with angels does not show that angels did have sexual relations with humans in the past.

Russ

[Undomiel]

DNA of fallen angels? How can angels have DNA similiar to ours, much less be able to produce offspring through intercourse?

It isn't similar, that's the point! When mixed with human dna, it creates an abnormally strong (in some fashion) human hybrid, capable of some pretty bizarre and amazing things. Remember when David goes up against Goliath, his entire family chickened out - only David had the courage to face Goliath.

With regard to the human DNA preservation......You are constructing a rather general perspective here from very little scripture indeed.

The Hebrews were the chosen people because Jesus' line can be traced through them all the way back to Adam (which means "Man"). Why would YHVH specifically relegate the ancestory of Jesus from the Hebrews? Why not the Hebrews here, the Canaanites here, the Egyptians there, etc? It began all those years ago in the Garden, traced itself to Noah, and continued on in this fashion until the birth of Jesus, who was not only perfect in His generations, He was spiritually perfect as well.

[David O]

Angels are not physical beings like we are

Russ

How can you decide this with all the scriptural references to them walking around, us unknowingly entertaining them, them talking to Abraham and eating with him?

Head covering is said to be for the sake of the angels, in the New Testament. I think in 1 Cor 14. My son's dreams were violent and the casting out of the demons was long and difficult and physically disturbing, vomit, etc... Once I cast them out of my house, ny son was anle to sleep easily and they were unable to return to diturb him anymore at my house.

I believe that they are the same spirits that were used by the magicians because they act the same. Jesus cast out demons. They acted the same. It's always about rebellion and denial of Jesus Christ's deity in the flesh.

We were made "a little lower than the angels" so I would be surprised to find that a higher creature was sexless. You have to go down pretty far on the creature ladder to find sexless creations. God created everything that was created and angels were created. We're not more complex than angels.

[Undomiel]

People tend to forget, alot of pretty wild stuff was happening in the Old Testament days. For example, Moses and the Pharaoh's magicians had a showdown! Elijah had a showdown with the prophets of Baal! Joseph out-prophesied the Egyptian soothsayers! So did Daniel! These were not normal every day events. These were real powers, fighting each other over the fate of humanity.

[JCA]

Today @ 02:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136873#post136873)
David O:



How can you decide this with all the scriptural references to them walking around, us unknowingly entertaining them, them talking to Abraham and eating with him? Why make them Star Trek blobs?

You are confusing their appearance with their 'nature'.. Angels are NOT human, even though they can 'look' human and act human. There is no discussion in the Bible as to exactly how the Angels where made, other than a reference that they are indeed different, and start out as a higher form.

The fact that an Angel could appear as a blob, or a burning bush, or a person with snow white wings, is irrelevent to what they actually are, and how they would mingle with Humans.. I would find it to be a blantant show of God and Satan, and would give proof of one or the other, and would remove the need for faith.. without which, we are nothing.

However, as no evidence has ever been brought forward that could support such claims, I would have to also fall on the side of skepticism, as David O does.

Just my opinion though.. of course :smile:

In Love and Peace

JCA

[Undomiel]

Today @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136867#post136867)
JCA:

HI :smile:

I read the intro post, and agree that it is very well thought out, and does raise some interesting questions. However, besides what some people believe, there really isn't any evidence that proves we have been visited by 'aliens'.. let alone mis-represented Angels.

There are plenty of stories, and anecdotes, and 'supposed' artifacts.. but none have ever panned out as being 'alien'.

A good place to look for information that either refutes, or at least logically questions what you have put, is here:

http://www.skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html

It is worth reading the whole thing, and the links from it; just as your information was worth reading.


To me, there is no need for these things to be done, by Angels or Demons, and so I question the idea that it is so.. especially today. Obviously, I have no way to address what may or may not have happened in Biblical times when it comes to such things, only the information that we have present day.

It falls back to questions such as: What would the DNA of such a union be like? Would the child 'know' they where a cross-breed? Would that child have any 'angelic' powers? etc..

And the logical conclusions that would then come from this.. IF it was true, at least in the present day, then we would have a lot of Angel offspring running around.. they would be different fro regular Man (no seed of Adam, no first sin etc.).. and they would inherently know that God and Satan existed, and would require no faith.. I can go on and on with the problems that such unions would bring. Would these children have the same type of 'soul' as us? It goes on and on..

Basically, I do not find there is enough actual evidence to support either Alien UFO's, or Angelic abductions - in the present day. :smile: Doesn't mean I'm right though..

IN Love and Peace

JCA

PS - Another thought: I do not think it is good to think about it in such a way either.. it then begs the question of why could it not be that indeed there are no Angels or God, and it has ALL been done by "aliens" and UFO's... it jst creates more confusion than actually clearing anything up.. IMHO. L&P.

The difference between what your link discusses and what I've been pointing out is -- scripture. It has nothing to do with Allen Hynek or any UFO cults, and everything to do with spiritual warfare, wickedness in high places, principalities, powers. You know, all that biblical stuff.

Do you believe the Old Testament is just a collection of fairy tales or do you think it was real history?

[Undomiel]

We are taught in Sunday School to think of the events of the Old Testament as if they were children's stories. While they may be a good way to introduce kids to the events of bible history, they are also viable lessons for adults, especially in our time when the workings of God are on a more personal level and dispersed amongst the bulk of humanity, rather than one race [et.al, the Hebrews].

The fact we don't see the Red Sea parting regularly, or men walking in fiery furnaces unscathed, or experience Pillars of Fire by night and so on, doesn't mean our Lord is not capable of these things today! But we have the Comforter inside us because of Jesus' free gift to us instead of the Lord's spirit being isolated to the Holy of Holies! Don't discount the validity of the events of the Old Testament. They serve as a reminder of the awesomeness of our God, not as some portent construed to be evil because of the weakness of the people it constantly amazed.

[Warcraft3]

Undomiel (I do believe this is the first time I have interacted with you on TWEB.....but I have read your posts before and find many of them to be quite good. That was my way of saying hello:smile:) :

Okay now on to the post........


It isn't similar, that's the point!
Yeah, I knew you were going to say that as soon as I hit send. LOL I should have clarified a bit more.

When mixed with human dna, it creates an abnormally strong (in some fashion) human hybrid, capable of some pretty bizarre and amazing things. Remember when David goes up against Goliath, his entire family chickened out - only David had the courage to face Goliath.
The problem here is that I do not believe they have ANY DNA in the way that humans do. So I do not believe mixing is even possible, since DNA is a physical structure which non-physical beings lack.

The Hebrews were the chosen people because Jesus' line can be traced through them all the way back to Adam (which means "Man"). Why would YHVH specifically relegate the ancestory of Jesus from the Hebrews? Why not the Hebrews here, the Canaanites here, the Egyptians there, etc? It began all those years ago in the Garden, traced itself to Noah, and continued on in this fashion until the birth of Jesus, who was not only perfect in His generations, He was spiritually perfect as well.
I do not see this as proof of your position because God could have branched off after Noah if He had wanted to. Why God chose the Hebrews and kept the lineage going all the way to Christ is a seperate question in my opinion, and does not prove or refute your position.

Russ

[Warcraft3]

Hi David:


How can you decide this with all the scriptural references to them walking around, us unknowingly entertaining them, them talking to Abraham and eating with him?
They can take on the appearance of being physical, and even interact with the physical world to a degree, but they are not physical beings like we are.

Head covering is said to be for the sake of the angels, in the New Testament. I think in 1 Cor 14. My son's dreams were violent and the casting out of the demons was long and difficult and physically disturbing, vomit, etc... Once I cast them out of my house, ny son was anle to sleep easily and they were unable to return to diturb him anymore at my house.
Hmmmmm...........well my views on the whole "spiritual gifts and spiritual warfare" are different from many Christians views. I do believe in them, but am very, very skeptical of miraculous claims. When people say that an exorcism was long and/or difficult I get very uncomfortable and guarded. I am not calling you a liar or anything, just letting you know where I am coming from. So if I question the experience or make critical comments just know that I am not doing it out of some personal attack against you, it is because such things are contrary to my view on miracles and spiritual warfare.

I believe that they are the same spirits that were used by the magicians because they act the same. Jesus cast out demons. They acted the same. It's always about rebellion and denial of Jesus Christ's deity in the flesh.
Yes, they could be the same spirits.

We were made "a little lower than the angels" so I would be surprised to find that a higher creature was sexless. You have to go down pretty far on the creature ladder to find sexless creations. God created everything that was created and angels were created. We're not more complex than angels.
Yes but sex is a physical act, and there is no indication (besides the possible one we are discussing) anywhere in scripture that angels are sexual beings. They do have "emotions" and "thoughts" like humans do, although even these are very different from what we experience. They do not have physical bodies, so I fail to see how they can truly be sexual in the sense that we are, much less impregnate a woman.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 04:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136975#post136975)
Undomiel:

We are taught in Sunday School to think of the events of the Old Testament as if they were children's stories. While they may be a good way to introduce kids to the events of bible history, they are also viable lessons for adults, especially in our time when the workings of God are on a more personal level and dispersed amongst the bulk of humanity, rather than one race [et.al, the Hebrews].

The fact we don't see the Red Sea parting regularly, or men walking in fiery furnaces unscathed, or experience Pillars of Fire by night and so on, doesn't mean our Lord is not capable of these things today! But we have the Comforter inside us because of Jesus' free gift to us instead of the Lord's spirit being isolated to the Holy of Holies! Don't discount the validity of the events of the Old Testament. They serve as a reminder of the awesomeness of our God, not as some portent construed to be evil because of the weakness of the people it constantly amazed.

Oh, I do believe that God is capable of doing those things today. I think the reason that miracles rarely happen today is because something is fundamentally wrong with believers. I think these things should be happening more frequently, and the fact that they do not is a reflection of todays Christians.

Russ

[JCA]

Today @ 04:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136961#post136961)
Undomiel:

The difference between what your link discusses and what I've been pointing out is -- scripture. It has nothing to do with Allen Hynek or any UFO cults, and everything to do with spiritual warfare, wickedness in high places, principalities, powers. You know, all that biblical stuff.

Do you believe the Old Testament is just a collection of fairy tales or do you think it was real history?

Okay, first, your post seems to be angry with me, and sarcastic, and I'm not sure why.. I am certainly not angry or upset with you..

If I am wrong, forgive me.. but you are coming across that way.

But to answer your thoughts..

If it has everything to do with Spiritual Warfare, what do physical UFO's that people see have to do with it?? A UFO is an unidentified flying object.. you have suggested that these things are actually Angels (fallen or not), and that is what people are seeing.. that is a physical manifestation of the warfare you are talking about.. and personally, I see no proof, or logical explanation that says this is so.

As for the OT being "fairy tales", I find that to be a disquised slur upon what I might believe.. I believe the OT is both historically accurate, AND analogy, metaphor, and even partially riddle. I find your taking it to be considered a "fairy tale" by me, to be extremely rude. Your then allude that if it isn't "Fairy Tale", then it is all factual history.. which there is also no difinitive proof of. Sure.. much of the Bible History has been confirmed.. but then quite a bit hasn't.

As for 'all that Biblical Stuff', some of what you have quoted does NOT come from the current Bible.. it may come from religious writings.. you can quote as many "Extra Biblical Sources" as you like, doesn't make then part of what is considered to be Gods guide.


Sorry to have bothered and disturbed you with a reply.


In Love and Peace

JCA

[Undomiel]

Today @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136976#post136976)
steadele:

Undomiel (I do believe this is the first time I have interacted with you on TWEB.....but I have read your posts before and find many of them to be quite good. That was my way of saying hello:smile:) :

Okay now on to the post........


Yeah, I knew you were going to say that as soon as I hit send. LOL I should have clarified a bit more.


The problem here is that I do not believe they have ANY DNA in the way that humans do. So I do not believe mixing is even possible, since DNA is a physical structure which non-physical beings lack.

So you don't believe we were made in God's image, physically and spiritually?


I do not see this as proof of your position because God could have branched off after Noah if He had wanted to. Why God chose the Hebrews and kept the lineage going all the way to Christ is a seperate question in my opinion, and does not prove or refute your position.

Russ


Follow me here: Adam was not an israelite nor a hebrew. He was the first man. Humanity was not "civilized" till we were tossed out of the Garden. We were bare naked, talking to animals, and living a trouble-free existence, wandering and food gathering. Then came the introduction of the Fallen Angels, whose attempt to civilize man was also their attempt to convince us that we could be LIKE GODS. This is all biblical. How would we become like gods if we were human? Do YOU think you are a God? With civilization we were taught magic by the fallen angels - tapping into and manipulating the forces of nature in an effort to be like GOD - without the need for machinery and technology. It was spiritual warfare vs. manipulation of natural forces. This is the battle you see transpiring between the soothsayers of Egypt and Babylon and the Hebrew prophets: The soothsayers were manipulating the forces of nature and the Hebrew prophets were vessels for the supernatural power of YHVH. DIFFERENCE: THE NATURAL VS. THE SUPERNATURAL.

Anyway, from Adam the genealogy of those who hadn't mingled with the Fallen Angels, traces itself on ONE LEG to Noah. From Noah it traces itself to Abraham. From Abraham it traces itself to Jacob, where the tribes of Israel begin. From there on out, the tribes of Israel are YHVH's chosen people because their lineage along that ONE LEG of Adam's ancestory is perfect in its generations and YHVH perserves that down through the generations to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, there's not any reason to have a "chosen [race of] people". Their RACE was their shared humanity from the beginning till Jacob, something the other peoples on the earth at the time were not able to proclaim because of the mixing of their genetics with the Fallen Angels.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136989#post136989)
JCA:



[quote]Okay, first, your post seems to be angry with me, and sarcastic, and I'm not sure why.. I am certainly not angry or upset with you..

If I am wrong, forgive me.. but you are coming across that way.

No, I'm not upset at all. Sorry if it sounded that way.

But to answer your thoughts..

If it has everything to do with Spiritual Warfare, what do physical UFO's that people see have to do with it?? A UFO is an unidentified flying object.. you have suggested that these things are actually Angels (fallen or not), and that is what people are seeing.. that is a physical manifestation of the warfare you are talking about.. and personally, I see no proof, or logical explanation that says this is so.

Read my post above to see the answer to that.

As for the OT being "fairy tales", I find that to be a disquised slur upon what I might believe.. I believe the OT is both historically accurate, AND analogy, metaphor, and even partially riddle. I find your taking it to be considered a "fairy tale" by me, to be extremely rude. Your then allude that if it isn't "Fairy Tale", then it is all factual history.. which there is also no difinitive proof of. Sure.. much of the Bible History has been confirmed.. but then quite a bit hasn't.

I asked the question because I needed to understand where you were coming from on your interpretation of the stories.

As for 'all that Biblical Stuff', some of what you have quoted does NOT come from the current Bible.. it may come from religious writings.. you can quote as many "Extra Biblical Sources" as you like, doesn't make then part of what is considered to be Gods guide.

Actually, if you look at the scriptures from the bible that I've quoted, these are not extra biblical.

[JCA]

Thank you for your clarification. :smile:

I did look at the Biblical references you made. And I have gone through the Bible again myself since I posted, and looked for any area that may indicate that Angels are 'physical' enough to do as you have described.

Almost every instance of Angels in the Bible has to do with them being an Angel of God, or the Lord, and this is right through Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Judges, and on.. Angels are depicted as the Lords messengers..

Now, my whole post is in response to this:

This spurned a debate regarding the validity of UFOs on the same thread. My initial premise is that UFOs may be supernatural phenomenon and that the "alien" lifeforms accused of abducting people and performing frightening experiments on them may in fact be demonic in nature. This concept was met with some resistance by the atheist population of TWEB as was the issue of the reality [or lack thereof] of UFOs as real physical objects or supernatural events.

So this is where we are currently at. What's your position on this complex issue?


This is where *I* stand on the issue :smile:

I am not part of the Atheist population (as you term it), and am in fact Christian (whether I am a good one or not, only God/Christ knows :teeth: ) and yet I still resist the idea that the physical manifestation of UFO's and "alien" life-forms as having anything to do with Angels.

To say that this is supernatural phenomenon made physical, you would have to provide some evidence to go along with your anecdotes and 'history'. Just because some people 1500 years ago may not have known what a Will-o-Wisp was, doesn't mean they had it right if they described it as a UFO of alien origin OR an Angel (not saying they would, but I hope you see my point). Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence to support such claims, and that was why I posted the link I did.. to show you that the physical side of what you are putting forward, doesn't actually exist (as far as we have been able to tell).

As for the Giants (the Neph.), as we do not see any of them today, and they are supposed to be indicative of the mingling you are proposing, it would lead me to believe it doesn't happen.. otherwise, we would be seeing more giants, no?

I also find other places in the Bible itself that lead one to believe that Angels and man have a different makeup..

Judges 13
16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Psalm 78
24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.
26 He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

And other such references... and so could not 'mingle' with man, any more than a horse could a cow - both have 4 legs, a head, etc..

I do not disagree there is a spiritual war going on.. but I do not believe in the physical manifestation of it, except through fallen man.. Every Angel I see described in the Bible, even the fallen ones, are commandable and commanded by God. What is Gods purpose for this union of Angel and Man, and where do we find that purpose within the Bible?

The bringing in of information from such writings as the Book of Enoch etc.. would be no different from me bringing in the writing of St. Thomas to help make my points. These are man made Doctrines.. the Bible only hints at hosts of Angels, and names only a few.. and yet, if you search the web, there are ranks and titles and names and powers and all sorts of abilities and 'things' ascribed to Angels that are not written in the Inspired word of God.

And so, in conclusion, although I find the idea interesting, and the thoughts of others who have discussed it, I neither believe in Mr. Sitchin - I find that there is enough against him (as there is for him), as to make his theories questionable, in the least (read HERE (http://www.skepdic.com/sitchin.html) for the other side of the coin to Zecharia), nor have I seen any physical evidence that suggest that these theories pan out.

If you are suggesting that these are totally spiritual happenings, and that we perceive them to be real physically, then that would be a different story.. and if that is indeed what you have been suggesting, then I apologise for not grasping it sooner. I was just addressing the initial premise that there was "physical abduction" and a "physical joining", which requires a LOT more explanation and proof. To which I cannot find in the Bible alone.

That is my position... and I don't pesume to be correct.. :wink:


IN Love and Peace

JCA

[Undomiel]

Today @ 11:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137121#post137121)
JCA:

[quote]Thank you for your clarification. :smile:

I did look at the Biblical references you made. And I have gone through the Bible again myself since I posted, and looked for any area that may indicate that Angels are 'physical' enough to do as you have described.

Almost every instance of Angels in the Bible has to do with them being an Angel of God, or the Lord, and this is right through Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Judges, and on.. Angels are depicted as the Lords messengers..

Yes, however, the fallen angels were NOT God's messengers. They are called Sons of God initially, because Lucifer was initially an Angel of God.

Now, my whole post is in response to this:


This is where *I* stand on the issue :smile:

I am not part of the Atheist population (as you term it), and am in fact Christain (whethere I am a good one or not, only God/Christ know :teeth: ) and yet I still resist the idea that the physical manifestation of UFO's and "alien" life-forms as having anything to do with Angels.

I don't think the current UFOs with grey aliens, for example, is angelic either. I think it's demonic (fallen angels).

To say that this is supernatural phenomenon, you would have to provide some evidence to go along with your anecdotes and 'history'. Just because some people 1500 years ago may not have known what a Will-o-Wisp was, doesn't mean they had it right if they described it as a UFO of alien origin OR an Angel (not saying they would, but I hope you see my point). Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence to support such claims, and that was why I posted the link I did.. to show you that the physical side of what you are putting forward, doesn't actually exist (as far as we have been able to tell).

People who have abduction experiences are traumatized, full of fear, and sexually abused. This is so consistent you can nearly set your timex by it.

As for the Giants (the Neph.), as we do not see any of them today, and they are supposed ot be indicative of the mingling you are proposing, it would lead me to believe it doesn't happen.. otherwise, we would be seeing more giants, no?

The fallen angels responsible for this were cast into the pit, when Jesus resurrected. However, they are supposedly released again. Whether or not this ties into the Apollyon prophecy in Revelation is something I can't determine, but I've not really studied Revelation in regards to the fallen angel theme in Genesis.

I slao find other places in the Bible itself that lead one to believe that Angels and man have a different makeup..

Judges 13
16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Psalm 78
24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.
26 He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.

Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

And other such references...

Aye, but they hadn't left their FIRST ESTATE. These are all heavenly angels you refer to.

I do not disagree there is a spiritual war going on.. but I do not believe in the physical manifestation of it, except through fallen man.. Every Angel I see described in the Bible, even the fallen ones, are commandable and commanded by God. What is Gods purpose for this union of Angel and Man, and where do we find that purpose within the Bible?

Another example of physical manifestation of it is the LEGION exorcism performed by Jesus Christ, Himself.

The bringing in of information from such writings as the Book of Enoch etc.. would be no different from me bringing in the writing of St. Thomas to help make my points. These are man made Doctrines.. the Bible only hints at hosts of Angels, and names only a few.. and yet, if you search the web, there are ranks and titles and names and powers and all sorts of abilities and 'things' ascribed to Angels that are not written in the Inspired word of God.

Is St. Thomas quoted by Apostles in the New Testament?

And so, in conclusion, although I find the idea interesting, and the thoughts of others who have discussed it, I neither believe in Mr. Sitchin - I find that there is enough against him (as there is for him), as to make his theories questionable, in the least. (read HERE (http://www.skepdic.com/sitchin.html) for the other side of the coin to Zecharia - nor have I seen any physical evidence that suggest that these theories pan out.

I filter Mr. Sitchin for relevancy. Not everything he says seems exactly correct, but he does have information that is useful.

If you are suggesting that these are totally spiritual happenings, and that we perceive them to be real physically, then that would be a different story.. and if that is indeed what you have been suggesting, then I apologise for not grasping it sooner. I was just addressing the initial premise that there was "physical abduction" and a "physical joining", which requires a LOT more explanation adn proof. To which I cannot find in the Bible alone.

I think they are currently manifesting spiritually and people perceive them as real, physical events, but I don't believe they are confined to that arena and unless that is one of the things Jesus Christ did when He resurrected [et.al, made it impossible for them to manifest physically, so they can no longer pollute the human genome]?

[Warcraft3]

Hello Undomiel, where does your name come from?

So you don't believe we were made in God's image, physically and spiritually?
Physically? No.
Spiritually? In a way, yes.
Let me explain...........
We are made in Gods "image" because we have the ability and the free will to embrace either good or evil. To quote the matrix......"The problem is choice". It is our ability to freely (and knowingly) choose between good and evil that makes us "in Gods image".




Follow me here: Adam was not an israelite nor a hebrew. He was the first man. Humanity was not "civilized" till we were tossed out of the Garden. We were bare naked, talking to animals, and living a trouble-free existence, wandering and food gathering.
My views of the garden of Eden are not those of a YEC. I do not believe Adam was living a trouble-free existence in the garden. I also believe in animal death and suffering before the fall, so my views may differ from yours a bit here. I am not sure if you are a YEC, but I certainly am not. I find YEC ideas to have weak support from the scriptures.

Then came the introduction of the Fallen Angels, whose attempt to civilize man was also their attempt to convince us that we could be LIKE GODS. This is all biblical. How would we become like gods if we were human? Do YOU think you are a God?
Ummm...........................no, I do not think I am a God


With civilization we were taught magic by the fallen angels - tapping into and manipulating the forces of nature in an effort to be like GOD - without the need for machinery and technology. It was spiritual warfare vs. manipulation of natural forces. This is the battle you see transpiring between the soothsayers of Egypt and Babylon and the Hebrew prophets: The soothsayers were manipulating the forces of nature and the Hebrew prophets were vessels for the supernatural power of YHVH. DIFFERENCE: THE NATURAL VS. THE SUPERNATURAL.

Anyway, from Adam the genealogy of those who hadn't mingled with the Fallen Angels, traces itself on ONE LEG to Noah. From Noah it traces itself to Abraham. From Abraham it traces itself to Jacob, where the tribes of Israel begin. From there on out, the tribes of Israel are YHVH's chosen people because their lineage along that ONE LEG of Adam's ancestory is perfect in its generations and YHVH perserves that down through the generations to Jesus Christ. Otherwise, there's not any reason to have a "chosen [race of] people". Their RACE was their shared humanity from the beginning till Jacob, something the other peoples on the earth at the time were not able to proclaim because of the mixing of their genetics with the Fallen Angels.

Well, I do not agree with everything you are saying but I really like how you are trying to tie everything together into an overall theology. Your view is interesting to be sure and I will consider it further and continue reading this thread.


Russ

[DunnySaze]

06-27-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134485#post134485)
Undomiel:



Some have objects supposedly extracted from their bodies, that they claim were implanted in them during their abductions. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

I too have heard of such things too, but such implants have never been produced. Until then, I must remain skeptical.


The list he gave: The Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Brahman and Buddhist religions, as well as ancient Egyptian and Peruvian religions. I'm guessing he's referring to Petra for the christian religion, rather than the muslim one, but it's only marginally connected. The muslim connection appears to be general area, related. But the ones that interested me in the list were: Judaism, Hinduism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Egyptian, and (what did the ancient peruvians worship? Cause those Nazca lines are freaky. http://www.crystalinks.com/nasca.html

These ruins can be linked to religions of one sort or another, for the most part. But the point I'm making is that each of these religions can be associated with many ruins over a wide area in some cases. These ones, other than being roughly co-linear, don't seem to be particulary special in most of the religions. The religions seemed to be already in existence when these and other structures were built. The religion inspired the building, not the other way aound. For instance, there are several pyramids older than the Great Pyramid, so the Egyptian religion was already in place. That's only the biggest.

[Undomiel]

Aye, which is why the religious connection between the sites is of interest to me. Why did they spring up along that same line?

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 06:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137756#post137756)
Undomiel:

Aye, which is why the religious connection between the sites is of interest to me. Why did they spring up along that same line?

Consider the map you can find at http://miac.uqac.ca/. Scroll down to Impact Structures and click on Images of impact structures link. Click the map to get a larger size. This is a map of recognized meteoric impact craters found in Canada (and a couple northern U.S.). Take a look at a line starting from the crater on the southern end of Great Slave Lake to the one on the southern end of Lake Michigan. Even though there are only 31 craters in total, fully 5 of them lie exacly on this line, and another 3 are only just barely off it. Why is this do you think? Now consider the number of religious sites scattered throughout the world. There must be 1000 alone in India. Does it really strike you as odd that a dozen or so are in a straight line?

[Undomiel]

You went back to the SITES themselves while I'm saying what's odd is these specific sites were the locations of the first major religions in the world, many of which are STILL major religions, such as judaism (sumeria - ur), hinduism, buddhism, (does brahamanism still count as a world religion or has it melded with hinduism?), ancient egyptian religion (does it even have a name? there were so many cults in it, it's like saying the usa religion. heh) and I guess the peruvians were incans?

[Undomiel]

Yesterday @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137476#post137476)
steadele:

Hello Undomiel, where does your name come from?'

Tolkien :D Arwen Undomiel Evenstar. I'm a Tolkien fan from waaay back in the 70's.


Physically? No.
Spiritually? In a way, yes.
Let me explain...........
We are made in Gods "image" because we have the ability and the free will to embrace either good or evil. To quote the matrix......"The problem is choice". It is our ability to freely (and knowingly) choose between good and evil that makes us "in Gods image".

How then do we know He is a He? Why do we call Him, Father? Does He just look human to us because He wants us not to be frightened by His real appearance. Does He have male "equipment"?


My views of the garden of Eden are not those of a YEC. I do not believe Adam was living a trouble-free existence in the garden. I also believe in animal death and suffering before the fall, so my views may differ from yours a bit here. I am not sure if you are a YEC, but I certainly am not. I find YEC ideas to have weak support from the scriptures.

Could you elaborate? I'm always interested in hearing people's reasoning.

Ummm...........................no, I do not think I am a God

*giggle* Just checking. :teeth: I kept getting that scene from Ghostbusters in my mind while I was typing that!

"Next time someone asks you if you are a god, you say YES!"

:rofl: What a silly movie.

[DunnySaze]

Today @ 01:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138214#post138214)
Undomiel:

You went back to the SITES themselves while I'm saying what's odd is these specific sites were the locations of the first major religions in the world, many of which are STILL major religions, such as judaism (sumeria - ur), hinduism, buddhism, (does brahamanism still count as a world religion or has it melded with hinduism?), ancient egyptian religion (does it even have a name? there were so many cults in it, it's like saying the usa religion. heh) and I guess the peruvians were incans?

Ummm, I went back to the sites because you did, when you wondered how they could all fall on a straight line. I provided a possible answer, that even random points on the globe can fall into straight lines. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. It might, but simply being aligned isn't a demonstration of anything in particular. Especially when you consider that these are not the only such sites in the world. There are many many more. These ones are nothing special. They are just the ones the website author chose. Why? Apparently, because they fall into a line. The major religions of the world were certainly not founded at these sites.

It's even debatable that all of them can even be classified as 'religious' sites in the first place. The Great Pyramid is a tomb, it is not a temple. The Egyptians had temples, but this wasn't one of them. The stone faces on Easter Island. Were they religious in nature? Maybe, maybe not. Same for the Nazca lines. We don't know why they were made. Also, the Nazcans were not Incas. The Incans did not arrive until some 500 years after the Nazcans had disappeared. That straight line misses all of the major Incan 'religious' sites or otherwise.

[Warcraft3]

Yo Undomiel:


Tolkien :D Arwen Undomiel Evenstar. I'm a Tolkien fan from waaay back in the 70's.
Thats cool. I havent read the books, but I do like the movies.

How then do we know He is a He? Why do we call Him, Father?
I guess His interactions with us relate more to the father figure than the mother figure, which is why He refers to Himself in the masculine

Does He just look human to us because He wants us not to be frightened by His real appearance. Does He have male "equipment"?
He does not really have a physical form, so He does not have any male "equipment".

Could you elaborate? I'm always interested in hearing people's reasoning.
Okay you asked me to elaborate on this comment.....
My views of the garden of Eden are not those of a YEC. I do not believe Adam was living a trouble-free existence in the garden. I also believe in animal death and suffering before the fall, so my views may differ from yours a bit here. I am not sure if you are a YEC, but I certainly am not. I find YEC ideas to have weak support from the scriptures.
So here goes............

Suffering "increased" not "introduced"
I believe there was suffering in the garden of Eden, but I believe it was minimal within the garden itself. Adam and Eve were living in a protected environment and God made life easy for them. The text says that God "planted" a garden, which means that He specifically created a place that was distinct from the rest of the world for man to live in. He did this to protect man and make life easy. The rest of the world was not like Eden, hence the need for Eden. So man did experience pain, but in a limited sense. Notice that God tells Eve (after the fall) that now her suffering in childbirth would be greatly INCREASED. God is not introducing pain and suffering here, but merely increasing the already existing pain and suffering.

Animal death
I also believe in animal death prior to the fall and see no scriptural reason for concluding carnivirous activity began only after the fall. It is usually claimed that scripture implies a vegetarian diet for both man and animals in the first chapter of Genesis, but I think this is an incorrect interpretation of the text. My reason for this is because of the situation after the Noahic flood.

Were all animals vegetarian?
After the flood God tells Noah that now he is permitted to eat meat for food, thus removing the restriction placed on man back in Genesis chapter 1. So God declares that mans diet has changed, yet makes no mention at all of any change in the diet of animals. This might not seem to be very signifigant at first, but consider this.....
If God is referring back to statements He made in Genesis 1, and is declaring a change in those commands then is it not strange He would specifically mention the animals in Genesis 1 but omit them later on? This does not make sense if both verses are exclusively referring to diet only. If Genesis 1 makes a dietary statement for both man and animals......and after the flood these diets have changed, then why are the animals ommitted? My answer is because nothing changed for the animals after the flood.

Now you could say, "Well thats because the animals diet didnt change after the flood, it changed right after the fall"
Okay, lets say that is true. Then again I ask....Why is it not mentioned? If it was important to mention in Genesis 1, then you would think the complete fundamental change to this diet would be declared by God as a result of the fall. But it is not mentioned anywhere. Why? Because it never happened. The statement to Adam about the animals eating vegetation is to focus Adams attention on plant life, since it is the basis of the food chain. The whole section is focused on giving Adam informaton on how to be a good stewart, so it makes sense God would focus Adams attention on the plant life.

The use of the word "die"
God tells Adam and Eve that they would "die" if the ate from the tree of knowledge. Now I believe this refers to both spiritual and physical death, but primarily spiritual (physical death was a secondary result). But regardless of whether it refers to spiritual death, physical death, or both the use of the word is telling. They both,apparently, had some context for understanding what the word "die" meant. I believe this context was provided by the world outside the protected environment of Eden. They knew what death was, because they had see things die before.

Okay I am going to stop here, cause I dont want to get too off topic. But I could go on about the tree of life, the "curse" God put on the earth, the use of the word "subdue", the exact nature of the "days" of creation....etc. But suffice it to say I find many scriptural inconsistancies with a "24-hour, no death or suffering before the fall" viewpoint.

*giggle* Just checking. :teeth: I kept getting that scene from Ghostbusters in my mind while I was typing that!

"Next time someone asks you if you are a god, you say YES!"

:rofl: What a silly movie.

LOL Yeah