Enki potentially coming back

[undo11]

i think where it finally started to make sense, was when i realized the translators had taken out the word adam and replaced it with man, concerning the creation of the first males and females.  male and female what?   they are called adam. they can't be called man, sexually, because some are female. and the females are not created in the image of the adam but in the image of the elohim.  something was seriously wrong with the story the way is explained to us in church.

the way this particular bit is bypassed is to say that creation was when our spirits were created. that makes no sense since there had to be a female concept in the first place for a female spirit to be put in and according to the story, eve was an idea that god came up with after adam was created  so adam wouldn't be lonely. 

and if adam was male and female, he either had to be a hermaphrodite, in which case he's not a he, or there were male adam and female adam before eve ever came about.  in essence, eve was a female adam.   adam would have to mean spirit, in order for this subject to suggest the creation of the female adam was simply a spirit, since the word there was originally, ADAM not man. adam was males and females. 

on top of that, if you look at the text that describes the creation of eve, when it says she was created from adam, and look up the original word for adam there, it's not adam but iysh.  i was like, what the heck is an iysh?

later when she gives birth to cain, she says, she has gotten  a man from the lord, yet the word for man there is iysh.  why did the translators keep switching around the words related to the male human or related to the adam people?

and why is it we are taught that when the adam was created, male and female, and in the image of elohim, that later they try to make it seem like eve is the first female.  how can she be the first female, if there was a female adam before that?  PARTS ARE MISSING.

i use to think it was just the result of being highly condensed, now i see they are leaving out details on purpose and not just leaving them out, but making the existing details read a certain way by very clever abuse of the language.

[undo11]

some say he was a hermaphrodite (and like i said before that means he was not a he) and that eve was extracted from him so he would have someone to talk to. but he's not a he until she was extracted, in which case, why do the translators call him a man?  ((the text there says adam not man.  naughty translators.  how can a hermaphrodite be a man? if it means to say homo sapians, then why are gay homo sapians considered to be ungodly since they have male and female characteristics?  wouldn't that make them more god like since the adam was created in the image of elohim with both sexes in one body?  i mean, this is a freakin' merry go 'round.))

further, how do you extract the essence of females from a rib?   was the female part of adam in its rib?  (i have to call it, IT, because it's not a male or female under the  hermaphrodite approach but both.)

where's the rest of the story?

where'd the iysh come from?  i mean that word just comes out of left field. if eve was made from an iysh, she wasn't made from an adam.  and if she wasn't made from adam, why is adam male and female. 

argh.

i finally realized it was a logic puzzle at this point and started applying my theory to the whole bible.

along comes the story of job. there's an accuser.  night and day, the accuser is accusing the humans before the most high god.  what's he accusing them of?  being human=having sin.

later,  i read that the law accuses us of sin.  i had to do a double take on that.   this was when it started to dawn on me that jesus' reference to the SYNagogue of satan was referring to the accuser.  the law accuses us because we are human.  being human was the problem.  and if being human was the problem, why does jesus and the book of psalms call us gods and children of the most high?

how can the law be satan?  that made no sense to me.  i had to back track to the first time the word satan shows up in the text. it's not till the time of david.   that was a bit of a shocker.  so i attempted to find out where it derived from originally and realized the etymology was probably egyptian, from SET (the serpent) + AN (the word for god) = the serpent god. 

at this point  i had determined that the serpent god of egypt was yet another name for the devil.  nothing new here.  however, then i came across an even more distressing bit of info.

the word seraphim, which is a race of angels (sons of God) came from the word "seraph" singular form, which is serpent, flying serpent, dragon.  things were starting to clear up a teeny tiny bit. here we have a paper trail from the serpent to a son of god to the dragon.  now all i had to do was find out which son of god was the dragon or serpent referred to in the text, since there were many serpents because there were many seraphim.  some seraphim are in fact, in front of the throne of god, i find out.  yeah another double take i did there.

didn't jesus call himself son of God?  what was the actual defintion of a son of God?  didn't the psalms call us all children (sons) of the most high god? yet we aren't serpents or dragons or angels.  how is this possible and furthermore, if many sons of God were dragons/serpents/seraphim, which one was the devil?  according to the text the devil is the accuser. sooo, who was always accusing us of being evil and worthy of eternal fire and destruction? 

smacked me right upside the head it did.

[Edward]

Undo you've been asking good questions indeed.   


I pose this to further the conundrum.  Imagine if you will that there are various "entities or gods" shall we say that are vying for control and they each have a hand in what "we/me/you"  are as a species.  In doing so there are various stories and creation myths spewed out and lost in translation, either intentionally or metaphorically.   It seems to me that there may be a larger galactic issue going on here and we are merely pawns  in the middle of it all but its much greater than that as such being pawns to  a certain extent we are of GREAT VALUE to seemingly various entities.  Gotta ask ourselves why is that.  Anyways.  What if there is a great disinfo campaign going on about various entities as being the evil ones being the decievers, when in fact the ones espousing that "Fallen  ones" are the evil doers are perhaps the one's that are perhaps championing for our continued existence.   There is a lot of muck in the waters so to speak and from my vantage point it seems like everyone has had a hand in something and there is a lot of finger pointing going on about who is this and who is that. 

Edward

[robomont]

ats had a thread stating that the torah or some jewish religion that seems like devil worshipping was actually another name for god.

i just know that first god made man and then later he made adam.
now ive never met a bigfoot but the us army field manual for north american species has a pic and statement on them.

so im deducing that bf was man but wouldnt  be a servant to take care of the garden so he made human.later on man probly crossed w human and thats where we are today w all the diff types of humans/man.thats who cain probly married into.not a sister as some claim.
if you add in the lilith story then it really gets crazy.

[08rubicon]

  Perhaps psalm 82 is the problem. 82.1 God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.. 82.6 I have
said,ye are gods,and all of you are children of themost high. 82.7 But
ye shall die like men..  This is refering to the most high God, talking
to an assembly of lesser gods on how to relate to men ( humans)

[hoss58]

some say he was a hermaphrodite (and like i said before that means he was not a he) and that eve was extracted from him so he would have someone to talk to. but he's not a he until she was extracted, in which case, why do the translators call him a man?  ((the text there says adam not man.  naughty translators.  how can a hermaphrodite be a man? if it means to say homo sapians, then why are gay homo sapians considered to be ungodly since they have male and female characteristics?  wouldn't that make them more god like since the adam was created in the image of elohim with both sexes in one body?  i mean, this is a freakin' merry go 'round.))

further, how do you extract the essence of females from a rib?   was the female part of adam in its rib?  (i have to call it, IT, because it's not a male or female under the  hermaphrodite approach but both.)

where's the rest of the story?

where'd the iysh come from?  i mean that word just comes out of left field. if eve was made from an iysh, she wasn't made from an adam.  and if she wasn't made from adam, why is adam male and female. 

argh.

i finally realized it was a logic puzzle at this point and started applying my theory to the whole bible.

along comes the story of job. there's an accuser.  night and day, the accuser is accusing the humans before the most high god.  what's he accusing them of?  being human=having sin.

later,  i read that the law accuses us of sin.  i had to do a double take on that.   this was when it started to dawn on me that jesus' reference to the SYNagogue of satan was referring to the accuser.  the law accuses us because we are human.  being human was the problem.  and if being human was the problem, why does jesus and the book of psalms call us gods and children of the most high?

how can the law be satan?  that made no sense to me.  i had to back track to the first time the word satan shows up in the text. it's not till the time of david.   that was a bit of a shocker.  so i attempted to find out where it derived from originally and realized the etymology was probably egyptian, from SET (the serpent) + AN (the word for god) = the serpent god. 

at this point  i had determined that the serpent god of egypt was yet another name for the devil.  nothing new here.  however, then i came across an even more distressing bit of info.

the word seraphim, which is a race of angels (sons of God) came from the word "seraph" singular form, which is serpent, flying serpent, dragon.  things were starting to clear up a teeny tiny bit. here we have a paper trail from the serpent to a son of god to the dragon.  now all i had to do was find out which son of god was the dragon or serpent referred to in the text, since there were many serpents because there were many seraphim.  some seraphim are in fact, in front of the throne of god, i find out.  yeah another double take i did there.

didn't jesus call himself son of God?  what was the actual defintion of a son of God?  didn't the psalms call us all children (sons) of the most high god? yet we aren't serpents or dragons or angels.  how is this possible and furthermore, if many sons of God were dragons/serpents/seraphim, which one was the devil?  according to the text the devil is the accuser. sooo, who was always accusing us of being evil and worthy of eternal fire and destruction? 

smacked me right upside the head it did.

Hi Undo, I found this website that I thought did a good job of explaining what was going on back in the beginning.

Lots of help with who made who and what their name was [grin]
http://earth-history.com/index.htm

[robomont]

i kinda think of it like a pirate ship in space.some hands decided to jump ship and scew the natives.the captain tried to clean up the mess but the island was too contaminated so he just said screw it and left promising the natives he would come back and save them so to make a safe gettaway.poop happens?

[hoss58]

i kinda think of it like a pirate ship in space.some hands decided to jump ship and scew the natives.the captain tried to clean up the mess but the island was too contaminated so he just said screw it and left promising the natives he would come back and save them so to make a safe gettaway.poop happens?

Yeah....something like that [grin]. But check out that link I posted it is really interesting, Cleared up a lot of my questions .

[robomont]

yea i read that site a few years ago.one of the best descriptions ive ever heard .i would back it before i would the bible and i grew up in a christian house.i was a religious nut until 2001.now i find religion the biggest problem in the world.the problem is religion promotes birth and atheism doesnt so the nuts outbread the smarts and here we are.idiocracy run amuk.plus i theorize the financial foundation of this country are the churches.if religion dies then so does the economy.a vibrant economy requires idiots spending money and financing big useless buildings.

[undo11]

  Perhaps psalm 82 is the problem. 82.1 God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.. 82.6 I have
said,ye are gods,and all of you are children of themost high. 82.7 But
ye shall die like men..  This is refering to the most high God, talking
to an assembly of lesser gods on how to relate to men ( humans)

sooo, why would jesus quote the psalms and say that to the apostles?

[undo11]

Hi Undo, I found this website that I thought did a good job of explaining what was going on back in the beginning.

Lots of help with who made who and what their name was [grin]
http://earth-history.com/index.htm

i got stuck on the cave of treasures text.  i started reading it and realized it was suggesting the adam and eve were booted from the garden and put in a mine to mine "treasure."  it doesn't say that, but it sure as heck suggests it.   i also kept noticing the references to the "Word" who would come and resurrect adam when he died on several different occassions (odd that).  The Word is a title given to Jesus in the New Testament. 

Straaange book. 

[08rubicon]

undo;
   I do not have the answer as to why Jesus would quote psalm 82.
However, in John 10, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees.As for the
disciples, Jesus chose them carefully.(john 6.70 'have I not chosen
you twelve,and one of you is a devil?) Is it possible that the disciples
may have been more than mere mortals.? Especially after having
been with God (Jesus). Some here on pegasus and at ats, have
wondered if powerfull church and political world leaders may be more
than 'mere mortals' ? This is my thoughts. The Pharisees were
powerfull church leaders of that time.

[undo11]

rubicon

that's possible. 

have you read that cave of treasures book?
i can't help but remember sitchin's claim that the human race was made to work the mines on earth, as replacements for the lesser gods, who didn't want to do it anymore, and that the only reason the lesser gods were doing it in the first place, was because they had to rebuild all the infrastructure after some cataclysmic war.  they went on strike, and appealed to enki for a solution. so he created humans to solve the problem.   

i think that's a bit of a contradiction, considering the references to the garden, which is mentioned in passing.  if they were created to mine,  why'd they start out in a garden. 

my theory was, at the time i first pondered sitchin's work on the subject (based on the actual sumerian-akkadian texts), that the gates of eden were stargates and rather than creating us on earth, he had brought us here thru the gates from the garden.  and the garden wasn't even on this planet. the 2 rivers, euphrates and tigris, were given those names afterwards, by the humans who lived in the area, as reminders of their real home (Whereever the garden really was), where the actual rivers mentioned are located.

that doesn't mean that we weren't created by enki elsewhere, but that our expulsion from the gates of the garden, was more like we were forced into the gate, to come here and dig their mines and so forth.

[Edward]

rubicon

that's possible. 

have you read that cave of treasures book?
i can't help but remember sitchin's claim that the human race was made to work the mines on earth, as replacements for the lesser gods, who didn't want to do it anymore, and that the only reason the lesser gods were doing it in the first place, was because they had to rebuild all the infrastructure after some cataclysmic war.  they went on strike, and appealed to enki for a solution. so he created humans to solve the problem.   

i think that's a bit of a contradiction, considering the references to the garden, which is mentioned in passing.  if they were created to mine,  why'd they start out in a garden. 

my theory was, at the time i first pondered sitchin's work on the subject (based on the actual sumerian-akkadian texts), that the gates of eden were stargates and rather than creating us on earth, he had brought us here thru the gates from the garden.  and the garden wasn't even on this planet. the 2 rivers, euphrates and tigris, were given those names afterwards, by the humans who lived in the area, as reminders of their real home (Whereever the garden really was), where the actual rivers mentioned are located.

that doesn't mean that we weren't created by enki elsewhere, but that our expulsion from the gates of the garden, was more like we were forced into the gate, to come here and dig their mines and so forth.

Basically go see Stargate The Movie with James Spader and Kurt Russell and the following Stargate sg-1 series that was made afterwards.       Pretty much says it all right there.






Edward

[undo11]

edward

you mean like this?


yeah i've seen the movie several times and the tv shows as well. i have a thread on ats on the subject that's over 300 pages long.