I could use some help from someone knowledgeable in Geology please.

[onawah]

Countless more souls than were on Earth originally have taken bodies and incarnated on Earth, since those days described in the Old Testament (whether accurately described or not).
Whatever genetic ancestry those newly arrived inherited in that process, does not necessarily determine whether the motivation and the resulting actions of those souls were pure or evil.
They may well have arrived here with a lot of karma from former lifetimes, that had little to do with those souls already inhabiting the planet.

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
Cain's group could not have their stained name fit into the position that they wanted
to occupy in society. So they wrote a story that made it possible for only the "righteous few"
to survive a world flood, and thus, by magic, they are now part of the ancestry of those
righteous few. But it simply isn’t true.

Ask yourselves - if in fact the traditional version of the flood that we see in today's
bibles were true, then why do we have so many evil people still among us? And they seem to hold the highest positions of power. Make no mistake about it, Cain's sons are very much
in evidence.

[Pris]

.

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
Some people assume the Bible contains no factual history, and certainly no science. They
base that assumption, perhaps, on the text as it is given for the common folk to read - the
adepts read deeper and derive the meanings hidden there for those with eyes that can see.

Another way to interpret the Bible... Bill Donahue really helped to change the way I see everything. Years ago, I enjoyed listening to countless hours... so much information/knowledge. (I really need to revisit his lectures.) A lot of it is entirely agreeable to me whereas other topics/takes, not so much. But, overall, in my opinion, Bill Donahue's lectures are absolutely outstanding.

When it comes to where I've gained so much of my spiritual knowledge and putting the pieces together, my hat's off to Bill Donahue.


Link to his popular videos, overview:
https://www.youtube.com/@bdona4556/videos


Bill Donahue's web site:
https://www.hiddenmeanings.com/

[shaberon]

I am a fan of comprehensive, multi-subject analyses with sometimes the important question held in reserve.


I will, however, say that criticism of the very first line of Genesis has been going on for a long time, perhaps hundreds of years, and that King James might be one of the last people on earth we would want to remember at all.


Correct that both Old and New Testaments are hatchet jobs that confuse and lose the possible original meaning, and replace it with something quite sinister.


In the same way it would be anachronistic and impossible for "god" to be in the Bible, then, in an actual timeline, "primitive" Judaism likely consisted of a few Prophets and Psalms, and there was no such thing as Genesis or a Messiah until the Babylonian Captivity. There probably is no Hebrew prior to 1,000 B. C. E., and "Semitic" is really Phoenician.

So, the Book of Genesis is most likely a copy or rendition of a prior legend.


From Masoretic Hebrew, the first sentence was translated from:

B’râsh ithbara Elôhîm eth hashamayim v’eth h’arets


but just like inserting vowels, spaces or word breaks are also "interpretations", and so this is an equal transliteration:



B’râsith bara Elôhîm eth hashamayim v’eth h’arets


This arrangement dispenses with any notion of a "beginning" or a "creation". Instead of "In the beginning God created", it comes out more as "In the source, the androgynous host shaped".

The closest word for a singular male god was El, with a goddess being Eloh. The term used in Genesis, Elohim, is plural, with the somewhat unconventional use of the masculine plural (-im) instead of a feminine (-oth). Instead of "god", Elohim indicates more of an "androgynous host". That is to suggest it derives from:

from ’elōah goddess + īm masculine plural ending


If you do not accept the possibility of a feminine root, you cannot do away with the plural.

Whether the second word is ithbara, or just bara, is the difference between "in the beginning" or something like "in the source".

The former would say "Time has a beginning", whereas the second means the permanence of a Void, or Waters, Chaos, or Tiamat, which means there is no "beginning of time".

As one possible revision:


De Purucker translates these verses from the original Hebrew as: “In a host (or multitude), the gods (Elohim) formed themselves into the heavens and the earth. And the earth became ethereal. And darkness upon the face of the ethers. And the ruah (the spirit-soul) of the gods (of Elohim) fluttered or hovered, brooding”.


He goes on to say that “we see that the Elohim evolved man, humanity, out of themselves, and told them to become, then to enter into and inform these other creatures. Indeed, these sons of the Elohim are, in our teachings, the children of light, the sons of light, which are we ourselves, and yet different from ourselves, because higher, yet they are our own very selves inwardly. In fact, the Elohim, became, evolved into, their own offspring, remaining in a sense still always the inspiring light within, or rather above . . .


Disposing of "the beginning" is because the first word is a form of Rosh:


The word, "Beresit בְּרֵאשִׁית", contain three syllables, "be'"-"resh"-"it".

The root of "Beresit" is: "rosh", meaning, "head", "first", "top" or "chief".

For example,

"The First of the Year" in Hebrew, pronounced "rosh-hashanah", literally translated as: "head of the year".

First of the month: "rosh chodesh" Top of the mountain: "rosh hahar". The Chief: "rosh hashevet". etc...

Conclusion: "rosh" or "resh" can be used as: "head" or "first" or "top" The syllable "be" or "ba", before a word can be used as, "at the", "in the" or "with".

For example:

"be ki'ta resho'nah": At the first class.


Plenty of historical figures are named Rosh, and they are not usually considered "the beginning", but "the chief".


I reviewed the Hindu sources about Varaha, looking for any more discussion about formation of the planetary crust. It is not there! Instead, it seems to be pretty consistently along these same lines, separating Earth from primordial Water. I was surprised. Modern Hindus are taking anything for proof that their texts explain newly-discovered principles like Quantum Spin, or that Ireland was an Indian colony from 11,000 B. C. E. It seems to me that people quickly and easily go too far with a hint or small idea, and publish as if fact.

Pictographic writings lack a "Rosetta stone", and so I am hesitant about interpreting Indus Script, having the same hesitancy with ancient Anatolian, even though I am aware that there are "conclusive" studies about them. The same is true for many physical phenomena, such as at one point in time, the Black Sea may have risen by a few meters, not several hundred feet. Or the earth's plates may not have slipped sideways by thousands of miles.

To an extent, some of that is only minor points, which does not detract from this thesis:

The bible is a tool for control, as it is now published. If we see what was originally meant, in the version from
Job, we see what it could have, and perhaps should have been. It would have saved a lot of lives and suffering over the millennium.

Although I might add that, in the milieu of Abrahamic faiths, Mandaeanism is going to cause problems for them all. It is the religion of Adam, and, at least at first glance, much closer to real esoteric spirituality from what is actually in its texts. The difficulty is that it is a closed society and you can't join it.

They hate violence, and, are the "same people" as the Jews, except they reject Moses and things like circumcision (violence to the body), so it shares almost nothing in common with Judaism or any other branch of this.


The "problem of evil" appears to be grossly exaggerated by Persian Manicheanism or "extreme duality", which separates half of the universe as a kind of nursery of evil and workshop of its Cosmic Father, the Devil. Such a reading is not apparent from the Mandeans or Indian sources. Instead, they clearly give a duality of a higher and lower Sun, and a higher and lower Divine Breath. So for example, you have a lower (visible) sun, and a higher (invisible, or plasma) one, which is of course quite close to the actual state of affairs, because the plasma sun can be perceived by clairvoyance.

Evil, of course, can only take place in the lower realm, which does not mean it is for this purpose, or, under command of the devil.

In fact, Indian spirituality is not comprehensible without allowing what we call "demons" to be among the most ardent devotees of divinity or Vishnu.

Similarly, if "demon" is the Greek "daimon", then for example Pistis "Faith" is a demon, meaning you are supposed to have a demonic faith in Jesus. So this is a linguistic trainwreck. But that is because people started to play with the words, rather than the meanings, which are supposed to be experiential.

So it seems we have a huge misunderstanding about the simple descent from heavenly realms to the materialized earth.

Once the devil vanishes as an imaginary fragment, what do the Abrahamists have left to offer?

Wouldn't matter, it's not worth taking.

The best I can do is try to be nice to some people who may have this in their background. In a few cases, something like Sermon on the Mount indicates a decent morality, which is a good value. To quote a nineteenth-century Indian who had been exposed, "What you teach people to do, is good, and what you teach them to believe, is foolish". It's theological dust.

[Jim_Duyer]

Thanks for all the fish.

[Eagle Eye]

You have mixed everything up. The Scriptures are so simple to understand if you read all of them. If any misunderstanding of a verse due to a bad translation, we still have other Scriptures to clear that part. With that theory of yours, you have completely gone out of all Scriptures. I will try to name some parts of Scriptures that are hard to understand:

1. Why God refers with "He" in all Scriptures. Knowing that God is omnipotent, almighty, it makes more sense to refer with He. Still we do not know (or remember) the image of God and to compare to human form is a great mistake.
2. The verses of wars. The Revelations were sent in a time of great conflicts, different groups of people were enemies to each other. We must understand that those verses are included in at least 5000 years timeline, not to mention the Book of Enoch that goes near 10,000 years. So when we read some verses might not sound actual and maybe we have passed beyond those tests, but people become impatient to read till the end and dismiss everything.
3. The story of Jesus as I have mentioned in other thread, one thing is for sure, that those verses cannot contradict other Scriptures. That's why christians have to read carefully all verses of Bible and maybe other Scriptures too, if they want to understand who was Jesus.
4. Why all Scriptures: Torah, Psalms, Bible revealed in the Holy Land and the Quran is revealed in another country and another language. Reading all Scriptures I have understood one thing, God tests His creation constantly. In other Scriptures He made us clear that He has chosen people of Israel above all populations, but with the passing of time those chosen people became arrogant, to a point to declare themselves as purest of all. So the last Revelation was in another language and in another country. What did the chosen people do?! They denied the last messenger and the last Scripture. If he isn't hebrew isn't a messenger and than the history speaks for itself. God punished them by scattering all jews around the world and denied them to pray in the temple, that's why they pray near a wall. It isn't the wall sacred, but is a reminder that they can't pray at the temple.
5. Why Muhammad? Because it is a greater probability that he is of lineage of Abraham's son. Muhammad was chosen to deliver the final Revelation which is the Quran.
6. Why Islam seem different from other Scriptures? Because of mixing of the Quran with other texts and arabic culture. It has formed a religion different from the base. Even if islam is mentioned to be the only religion revealed, it doesn't have this form we see today. Islam means to submit to God in free will. That's why it's the same religion for all. The Torah, Psalms, Bible and the Quran has one thing in common, to submit to God in free will. That is why it's the same religion, but now has divided in many branches. All of them claim to be true, but none really is, unless they join together all Scriptures and become one religion.
7. Why one God and not many gods? Because if they were at least 2 gods they would fight for claiming the dominion and we would experience catastrophic events.

[Bill Ryan]

Mod note from Bill:

Eagle Eye has now been retired from the forum. Please see this explanation on the RECORD of MODERATOR ACTIONS thread.

[Jim_Duyer]

I'm going to consider this one completed and thanks for the suggestions.
To answer one question that seems to be pending somewhat, that I did not fully answer earlier,
when translation Sumerian there are often meanings that are short, but actually are not.
For example, I was able to obtain the paragraph that I provided by using the context to fill
in the gaps. If you see table, chair, chalk, student and book, you would know it's probably a school.

And in English we have the same thing - I could say run, and some translator on some distant world far away from today in time, might write: A bipedal being, with forethought, decided to place one foot in front of the other, in rapid succession, in order to propel himself as rapidly as possible from one position to another. And it would still mean run.

Thanks again.

[ExomatrixTV]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Mod note from Bill:

Eagle Eye has now been retired from the forum. Please see this explanation on the RECORD of MODERATOR ACTIONS thread.

Also, refusing to answer my sincere & valid questions, which he easily could, if he was open & frank!

[Pam]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
BTW - I promise to try my best not to be so scatter-brained, to look over my posts before hitting the button to publish.

I like to work on three or four language translations at the same time - sometimes in different languages - it helps my mind to focus. Don't know why - always been that way. And sometimes I forget to pull out of that gear and get back in the gear to publish content that has some order of completeness to it. Thanks.

Jim, Are you kidding? You are so appreciated here. You bring some refreshing information to the table. On top of that you have a humble nature, that I find very refreshing. Thanks for all the interesting perspectives and takes on the nature of our history.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
BTW - I promise to try my best not to be so scatter-brained, to look over my posts before hitting the button to publish.

I like to work on three or four language translations at the same time - sometimes in different languages - it helps my mind to focus. Don't know why - always been that way. And sometimes I forget to pull out of that gear and get back in the gear to publish content that has some order of completeness to it. Thanks.

Jim, Are you kidding? You are so appreciated here. You bring some refreshing information to the table. On top of that you have a humble nature, that I find very refreshing. Thanks for all the interesting perspectives and takes on the nature of our history.

Especially coming from a centered person such as yourself that is a deep compliment and I thank you.
And, I have some good ones coming up

[Applesprig]

Hi, About the Creation Event, I highly recommend Immanuel Velikovsky's explosive book "WORLDS IN COLLISION". (It was the book that Albert Einstein had on his desk before he died). Anyway, it is about the planet Venus which was recently captured in our solar system, It came in as a comet etc etc causing enormous damage here on earth, destroyed a once habitable Mars then settled into it's current position. It is a new planet, liquid boiling gases, bubbling volcanoes, is the only planet that rotates in the opposite direction to all the other planets.
I am going to extrapolate by suggesting that Earth too was once a comet, actually all planets come into our system as comets, after many visits to our solar system (gaining
in size each time) they are "captured" and settle down. There is much more to this if you are inclined to explore more ideas on creation.

[Applesprig]

My reply post just vanished...sorry , new computer.