From Egypt to Israel in symbols

the chi-ro is the alpha and the omega, otherwise known as the rod and staff of jehovah, also known as the hook and flail of pharaoh. don't misunderstand, i'm not saying the pharaohs were jehovah, however, i am saying the first one *predating the black sea flood* and the last one, were jesus jehovah, otherwise known as the sumerian enki.

it's not accurate, at least, i don't think so, to claim that the hebrews didn't come up with their concepts until torah. it's just all so carefully worded, and so separated in time from us, culturally and linguistically, that it takes some time to weed thru it and backwards engineer the info.

reply to post by undo


I think the intimation here is that they came up with their concepts via graft from the Egyptian system. Unless I am mistaken, anyway.

Which would make sense to me. You leave Egypt, and take with it the culture you developed. You are led by an Esoteric master, who has some level of disdain for your perfunctory understanding of the religious mythos. So this esoteric master, Moses, tried to take a different angle on the exact same secrets. The torah is the result of this new branch of esoteric study. And given how robust it became rather quickly, I would venture a guess that either Moses was truly enlightened, or he had a relatively strong team of well knowledged individuals.

Kabbalistic practices are among the most well known esoteric religious studies. Although, they are not well known for the right reasons. Kind of ironic if that is how it went. That Judaism was Moses attempt at separating the profanity from religion, at least to some degree. The whole "worship the word, not the symbol" concept brought up by the OP is an indication of this. But in the end, the esoteric studies related to Judaism become embraced by the very same profane worshipers that he was trying to stop.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


i understand the implication is that the egyptians were, at the time of moses, off the beaten path but there's no indication, from what i can tell, that the beaten path was entirely accurate either. in other words, you can't take the stories of the deutorocannonical books (first five books of the old testament), and claim they are wholy egyptian as the sumerians beg to differ. in fact, the sumerians shared that same history with the egyptians and that's the big elephant in the room that egyptologists try to ignore in their efforts to purge ancient history from consideration.

etymologically, you can trace the hebrews backwards to the habiru, and the habiru back to the city on the euphrates known as nibiru. nibiru or simply nibru ( equivalent etymology is hebrew=habiru=habru), was the temple city of the sumerian god known as enlil. enlil was hard core. he owned the planet and was given it as an inheritance from his father, anu, who was "the heavenly father" of enlil and enki. by heavenly father, i mean he didn't live here and from what i can tell, didn't make many visits either. sitchin described him as otiose. i'd say that's a pretty fair description.

these 3 guys show up in the old testament as jehovah. they also have egyptian equivalents because it's the same story, transmitted via the khemites (ham's predecessors and even ham himself).

in fact, the first king on the sumerian kings list (alulim) is atum, otherwise known as adam, and also known as elohim. in essence, same story. god (elohim in the royal sense) of creation, creates copies of the elohim (anunna, igigi, adam males and females created in genesis 1). in egyptian this is read as "self-created" but its just saying the same thing as the biblical account -- the first adam were created by elohim, singular, in the image of elohim, plural. elohim created elohim = self-created. really not self created but you miss that point unless you do a comparative analysis

undo
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

i understand the implication is that the egyptians were, at the time of moses, off the beaten path but there's no indication, from what i can tell, that the beaten path was entirely accurate either. in other words, you can't take the stories of the deutorocannonical books (first five books of the old testament), and claim they are wholy egyptian as the sumerians beg to differ. in fact, the sumerians shared that same history with the egyptians and that's the big elephant in the room that egyptologists try to ignore in their efforts to purge ancient history from consideration.

Absolutely. There is a definite blurring of lines from civilization to civilization.

The Egyptians didn't have some big buildup to their feats. They just kind of exploded onto the scene. Which is strange, as the same can be said of many other areas, such as Gobleki Tepe. You don't see some build up to great feats. You have great feats performed, then a degradation, gradually, from there.

Did the Egyptians come from the Sumerians? Or did they both share the same ancestor?

bigfatfurrytexan

undo
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

i understand the implication is that the egyptians were, at the time of moses, off the beaten path but there's no indication, from what i can tell, that the beaten path was entirely accurate either. in other words, you can't take the stories of the deutorocannonical books (first five books of the old testament), and claim they are wholy egyptian as the sumerians beg to differ. in fact, the sumerians shared that same history with the egyptians and that's the big elephant in the room that egyptologists try to ignore in their efforts to purge ancient history from consideration.

Absolutely. There is a definite blurring of lines from civilization to civilization.

The Egyptians didn't have some big buildup to their feats. They just kind of exploded onto the scene. Which is strange, as the same can be said of many other areas, such as Gobleki Tepe. You don't see some build up to great feats. You have great feats performed, then a degradation, gradually, from there.

Did the Egyptians come from the Sumerians? Or did they both share the same ancestor?

same ancestorS, plural.

it's been assumed by translators that the adam males and females created in the image of elohim (plural) were humans. they were not. they were elohim, albeit copies of elohim. these were the "lesser gods." but still called elohim. what i think happened is moses was given the history from pharaoh's scholars and also from his habiru mother. his habiru mother had the data from mesopotamia. at some point, moses must've realized these were the same stories, and that to lessen the confusion on the name game, he would apply the sumerian name (et.al, alulim) to elohim the creator, and the egyptian name atum (adam=elohim=alulim) to the created.

this resulted in people thinking the first adam were entirely different from the elohim (plural) they had been copied from, and also that the creator elohim (singular) and the elohim who were used as the template for the adam males and females, were both the same and both singular. this is not so . the creator was singular in the royal sense, but the thing created was copied from the elohim, plural. this means the creator had created other elohim before the elohim copies

it's all the same banana with the exception of a singular elohim creator, creating many adam males and females in the image of elohim plural that predated the elohim copies.

i take this to mean that the information is pre-adamic in the traditional sense, and this is throwing people off on the timeline as well.

allow me to clarify:

chapter 1 of genesis describes the creation of atum / adam males and females, who are copies of the elohim, plural.
this happens during the first 7 days of creation. the creation event culminates and elohim, singular, is happy as a peach
about how the whole thing went. no complaining about having to curse his creation because they ate from some tree, in fact, the elohim copied adam males and females are allowed to eat from any fruit tree. this begins chapter 2, where we see the creator resting on the 7th day. then, all of the sudden, he notices there's no adam to till the ground. what ? didn't he just create the adam in the first 7 days of creation? well yes and no. he created the atum/adam/elohim/alulim copies, but he hadn't created humans yet. this story is told in detail in the sumerian record.

the earth had undergone a cataclysm, which is mentioned briefly in the first few verses of genesis 1. the anunna / elohim evacuated. when they returned, the infrastructure of the earth was a shambles. the mines, farms, temples, centers of activity, were all destroyed. so the elohim created by the creator elohim, were set to work on it. they began to rebuild everything. meanwhile, the creator elohim began to re--terraform the earth with approved life forms, perhaps saved in the form of dna from the previous pre-ice age earth. everything was re-created. however, the created elohim grew unhappy about their workload and went to enlil's temple fortress to stage a protest. enlil sent for enki to solve the problem, since he was in charge of life form management and could make more copies of the elohim as replacement workers.

enki, however, was off planet at the time, and had to travel back here to solve the issue. he took some of the created elohim dna, modified it, and made the first human procreators -- elohim copies who could make copies of themselves, a hands free solution. and these are the ones you see in chapter 2 . problem was, the created elohim had unlimited lifespans, were extremely healthy, and only multiplied by copying or cloning of some kind. whereas the new human procreative versions could copy themselves and enlil didn't like this. this is why he went to the council before anu, and demanded that enki be forced to tweak human dna so that it didn't have unlimited life span.

that is essentially all three renditions of what happened -- the biblical, sumerian and egyptian.

undo
etymologically, you can trace the hebrews backwards to the habiru

Etymology is a linguistic term for determining the origin of words, not people. Many English words have their origin in India and Persia, simply because English is a Germanic and thus an Indo-Eupropean language. This doesn't mean that the Britons or Australians or Americans for that matter descend from Kashmir or Teheran. Certain knowledge and trades, however, followed that route, migrating from the East.

Online Etymology Dictionary has recorded the following etymology for the adjective 'Hebrew':

late Old English, from Old French Ebreu, from Latin Hebraeus, from Greek Hebraios, from Aramaic 'ebhrai, corresponding to Hebrew 'ibhri "an Israelite," literally "one from the other side," in reference to the River Euphrates, or perhaps simply signifying "immigrant;" from 'ebher "region on the other or opposite side." The noun is c.1200, "the Hebrew language;" late 14c. of persons, originally "a biblical Jew, Israelite."

Source

I can't see much that looks even remotely similar to your "etymology" for the word. The word 'ibri or 'ibhri is quite similar to the name Abraham (or variants like Ibraim) and the two can be seen as some form of alliteration, word-play you see all through the ancient Hebrew library. Ex. how Adam was a product of the adama, red henna clay, the soil in Eden, and how woman "ishah" was taken from man or "ish".

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


you will find many words from mesopotamia have multiple etymologies that all have their origins in sumerian words.
for example, abzu is later translated absu and apsu. the abzu was enki's water gate, a pure place, a holy place. this shows up in another form of solomon's temple apsu.

another example -- nibru is nibbur is nippur.
mesopotamian words had dyslexic flips.

and if that weren't enough, baal is bel. i found this out while following enlil's name thru history.

EN.LIL
LIL
il
ila
ilu
al
el

ba'el is the same as ba'al.
b'el is the same thing as ba'el and ba'al.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by undo

 

I think the intimation here is that they came up with their concepts via graft from the Egyptian system. Unless I am mistaken, anyway.

Which would make sense to me. You leave Egypt, and take with it the culture you developed. You are led by an Esoteric master, who has some level of disdain for your perfunctory understanding of the religious mythos. So this esoteric master, Moses, tried to take a different angle on the exact same secrets. The torah is the result of this new branch of esoteric study. And given how robust it became rather quickly, I would venture a guess that either Moses was truly enlightened, or he had a relatively strong team of well knowledged individuals.

Kabbalistic practices are among the most well known esoteric religious studies. Although, they are not well known for the right reasons. Kind of ironic if that is how it went. That Judaism was Moses attempt at separating the profanity from religion, at least to some degree. The whole "worship the word, not the symbol" concept brought up by the OP is an indication of this. But in the end, the esoteric studies related to Judaism become embraced by the very same profane worshipers that he was trying to stop.

In Acts it says that Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. Right after it says he was brought up in Pharaoh's house. In those times the Pharaohs daughter would have been dedicated to the temple, very likely the temple of On, in Heliopolis. She would be considered a daughter of the Sun-god. Moses as the younger son would have been raised as a priest in the House of the Sun. Kind of like how Harry of England goes into the army, instead of being in line to rule. Going waaay back this was probably a way to control opposition to rule, and the priest was made eunuch. Circumcision may be a vestige of forced castration anthropologically. Just as the nation of priests, Israel were supposed to be separated from the nations by their loss of the flesh crown, the removal of all sexual desire, would have been associated with priesthood, like it is now, but those poor guys still have that testosterone raging through them.

From the time right before Judah went into exile till the time they get back, we see some major changes in the theology and iconography, or lack thereof. Jeremiah takes the Ark, and the brazen serpent and hides them, because people had started worshipping them, or at least that's the story we're told. Could be that they were trying to protect the mysteries from the profane. Could be that the Deuteronomists and Priests changed it to fit their theology. Could be part of the unfolding revelation that God is not found in stone temples, culminating with Jesus declaring he is the true temple, (and us in return). I'm still up in the air there, but I lean to a combination of the 3.

Not to get into it much right now, but I take that a lot from how Jesus and Paul read and quoted the OT scriptures, which is very selective, and paints a very different picture of who the Father is. Jesus said "no man has seen the father at any time save the son". Also "sacrifices and burnt offerings I did not require", and "you have heard it said, an eye for an eye, a tooth, for a tooth, but I tell you love those who hurt you and do good to others". This is a direct contradiction to the Law of Moses. So not everything that is in the Bible is ghost written by God, as most evangelicals believe. But what is chaff/covering/veil, and what is grain/truth??

That is the big and no everyone reading lets not turn this into a bible bash vs. bible word of god argument please

reply to post by undo


Interesting info

I agree that the Egyptians weren't first, nor were the Sumerians. The chi-ro being the staff and crook makes total sense.

undo
allow me to clarify:

chapter 1 of genesis describes the creation of atum / adam males and females, who are copies of the elohim, plural.
this happens during the first 7 days of creation. the creation event culminates and elohim, singular, is happy as a peach
about how the whole thing went. no complaining about having to curse his creation because they ate from some tree, in fact, the elohim copied adam males and females are allowed to eat from any fruit tree. this begins chapter 2, where we see the creator resting on the 7th day. then, all of the sudden, he notices there's no adam to till the ground. what ? didn't he just create the adam in the first 7 days of creation? well yes and no. he created the atum/adam/elohim/alulim copies, but he hadn't created humans yet. this story is told in detail in the sumerian record.

the earth had undergone a cataclysm, which is mentioned briefly in the first few verses of genesis 1. the anunna / elohim evacuated. when they returned, the infrastructure of the earth was a shambles. the mines, farms, temples, centers of activity, were all destroyed. so the elohim created by the creator elohim, were set to work on it. they began to rebuild everything. meanwhile, the creator elohim began to re--terraform the earth with approved life forms, perhaps saved in the form of dna from the previous pre-ice age earth. everything was re-created. however, the created elohim grew unhappy about their workload and went to enlil's temple fortress to stage a protest. enlil sent for enki to solve the problem, since he was in charge of life form management and could make more copies of the elohim as replacement workers.

enki, however, was off planet at the time, and had to travel back here to solve the issue. he took some of the created elohim dna, modified it, and made the first human procreators -- elohim copies who could make copies of themselves, a hands free solution. and these are the ones you see in chapter 2 . problem was, the created elohim had unlimited lifespans, were extremely healthy, and only multiplied by copying or cloning of some kind. whereas the new human procreative versions could copy themselves and enlil didn't like this. this is why he went to the council before anu, and demanded that enki be forced to tweak human dna so that it didn't have unlimited life span.

that is essentially all three renditions of what happened -- the biblical, sumerian and egyptian.

While I don't necessarily agree with the alien aspect of what you're saying, I agree with a lot. The difference is for you its out there, for me its in here. Not saying you are wrong btw. Its just interesting the same data, different outcomes. I see the 7 days of creation as the formation of the New Man, the Christ. This is a prophetic chapter (well ending in 2:3). Everything is Good, there is no strife, and Adam is male-female/echad/unity Hermaphroditic Hermes-Aphrodite.

Then we skip to the garden and there is no plant sprouted up from the ground yet, ruh roh young earth creationists We go from El and Elohim in Gen 1 to YHWH elohim in Gen 2. Abraham worshipped El as El Elyon, El Shaddai. Moses is given the name YHWH at the burning bush, which YHWH tells him his ancestors did not know Him by. Though we have points where it says YHWH with the patriarchs. Anyway the way I see it there are 2 main threads in the bible. The tree of Life which is one/echad/unity. And the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is duality. YHWH is a representation of this, as the god of the old testament, is harsh, jealous, vengeful, destructive etc. Yet Jesus painted a very different picture of His Father, who he asked to forgive his murderers as they were crucifying him. God is light, and in him there is no darkness or turning. God is love. Sometimes these are attributes of the OT god, but not always. There is definitely darkness and turning. The unity is this "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father", and "I and the Father are one". "He is the firstborn over all creation, the exact image of the invisible God". That is the tree of Life.

This concept covers the Enki/Enlil dual. Cain/Able. Esau/Jacob. Hagar/Sarah. Romulus/Remus. Set/Horus. Adam/Christ
Min/Resheph.

Again, thats how I see it. Not saying you're wrong, because there are multiple levels of understanding. Literal/Plain, Moral, Spiritual/Esoteric. Some see it as 4 levels called PaRDeS, an acronym for paradise.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by zardust

 

I am just curious, have you ever asked a Jew why they put a dash between G and D before?

The answer is quite simple when you ask, and sometimes you do not have to be so far reaching in your theories to find out a truth, not everything is veiled inside a veil. Somethings are quite plain, and very simple.

Sorry, I was just flowing, and didn't finish my thought on G_D.

I know why, they don't want to say the name of God. But that doesn't make sense because God isn't God's name. God is translated from elohim, which means power, authority, ruler, judge, god. Moses is called an elohim to Pharaoh and to Israel. I've rarely seen Lord used by Jews, which is the word that is translated for YHWH. But even then that is better a translation for Baal.

They are also not supposed to have the name of other gods even touch their lips, but its a little ironic that they are using G_D, not pronouncing it, treating it as the name of God, which again its a title, not a name. And to boot the word God in english very likely derives from Gad G-D. It's all just a bit of silliness thats all.

well i concluded from careful study of the verses regarding the creation of the adam male and female copies,
that it was not a hermaphrodite, but a bunch of males and females. the text calls the copied adam, THEM and THEY, not it.
this means at the very least that more than one adam was copied, but why would it be only male? eve was just the first
procreative human female adam, not the first female adam. note that's what her name means -- mother. well yeah, the previous adam males and females, were not procreators, they were copies / clones of the elohim (plural).

so it isn't one god making copies of himself, et al, it wasn't god self creating
and it wasn't a bunch of gods creating a bunch of humans
and it wasn't one god creating hermaphrodites
and it wasn't one god creating only males.
it was one god, making copies of other gods, who were males and females, that didn't reproduce by mammalian sexual
intercourse but via some kind of cloning.

the trees.

the trees of the garden are metaphors for inheritable dna.

the tree of knowledge was that portion of dna governing procreation.
this is why it says, "adam KNEW (had knowledge of) his wife and she begat.
the whole thing about the opening of their eyes to their nakedness was
they had become sexually active and were stimulated by the sight of each other's
nudity. before that, they weren't reproducing via sexual procreation, so naked meant nothing.
they had no hormones related to procreation because they weren't necessary, as new
adam were created via copying, not via procreation.

the tree of life is that portion of dna governing cell regeneration. in human dna, particularly the telomeres,
the little end caps are only alloted 60 replications before they degrade and the cells die.
we were nerfed because enlil didn't want a bunch of sexually active, hormonally
driven humans, reproducing like rabbits and living forever. the text even makes this
abundantly clear. this was his real estate and divine law alloted him the last word on
what happens on this world, and his last word on human procreators was, NERF 'EM BEFORE THEY TAKE OVER THE UNIVERSE. or something like that.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

i can make whatever you would like. How about a full size phoenix avatar, too?

how would you like it to look ont he sig line?

edit on 3/22/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

I'll take an avatar upgrade for the sig line Egypt to Israel in symbols. Maybe an ark on one side and a djed on the other. Thanks man

zardust

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

i can make whatever you would like. How about a full size phoenix avatar, too?

how would you like it to look ont he sig line?

edit on 3/22/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

I'll take an avatar upgrade

for the sig line Egypt to Israel in symbols. Maybe an ark on one side and a djed on the other. Thanks man

Ill post something for you in the link in my signature. Sometime tonight.

zardust

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

i can make whatever you would like. How about a full size phoenix avatar, too?

how would you like it to look ont he sig line?

edit on 3/22/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

I'll take an avatar upgrade

for the sig line Egypt to Israel in symbols. Maybe an ark on one side and a djed on the other. Thanks man

so no response? you really should read the related verses again. i think many people of different views have not actually studied the actual verses but rather someone else's teaching on it, which historically, has been based on whatever the view of some powerful organization was and typically colored by the timeframe as well. during a time when women were viewed as responsible for the fall narrative, even in light of the fact the text shows an entirely different thing, the evidence for this insistence in believing anything other than what it actually says, is frustrating to behold.

p.s. the male adam who ends up mating with the first procreative adam female named eve, was already procreative when the fall narrative starts. the evidence begins with the human male (who differs from the copied elohim males in that he can procreate)
is lonely. why is he suddenly lonely? and how could he be lonely when all those other adam males and females have already been created? easy. he was like stricken with something akin to puberty. he needed a mate. so the procreative dna is extracted from his "rib" (cell), is recombined and used to modify a female adam copy to be procreative, that way the adam isn't lonely.

so how did it become the fall narrative and blamed on eve ? when the male procreative adam saw the female procreative adam, the woman tempted the man. it's ludicrous. she was blamed for being exactly for the purpose she was designed -- as his mate. he was supposed to be attracted to her. she was supposed to be attracted to him. this was not some anomalie. what made it bad was when enlil realized the environmental and political implications. he pitched a fit and said there's no way he's going to abide with having "knowing" humans living forever on his planet. their population growth would be explosive. they would sneak around and make illegal copies of themselves, it was outrageous and had to be fixed.

thats why paul says in the new testament that adam already KNEW, he was already procreative. he wasn't "fooled" but the eve was fooled. this just means that the eve wasn't familar with procreation at the time, whereas the adam was. it doesn't mean that women are stupid, nor that they were once hermaphrodites, nor that they were only created in the image of male humans.

enlil made it a sin to be procreative and human after enki created us and said go forth and multiply, enlil said, no! don't go forth and multiply.

doh

undo

zardust

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by zardust

 

i can make whatever you would like. How about a full size phoenix avatar, too?

how would you like it to look ont he sig line?

edit on 3/22/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

I'll take an avatar upgrade

for the sig line Egypt to Israel in symbols. Maybe an ark on one side and a djed on the other. Thanks man

so no response? you really should read the related verses again. i think many people of different views have not actually studied the actual verses but rather someone else's teaching on it, which historically, has been based on whatever the view of some powerful organization was and typically colored by the timeframe as well. during a time when women were viewed as responsible for the fall narrative, even in light of the fact the text shows an entirely different thing, the evidence for this insistence in believing anything other than what it actually says, is frustrating to behold.

Sorry, I was busy, just got home. The word "them" is not in the Hebrew it is inserted for english purposes, but there is no word there for "them". I have studied the actual verse quite in depth, along with the entire 1st chapter of Genesis. I just don't agree with your conclusions. Again you might be right, and like I said, I think there is some validity to the alien/god thing. I just don't know for sure. For me if the god-s are real, Hyper-Dimensional is more likely to me. For all I know this whole thing is just a simulation built for me and nobody else is real. Mind Blown I know

When I was still a literalist, I had a theory that the fruit had a virus in it that became our telomeres. We are after all highly symbiotic beings, we have more bacteria on/in our bodies than we have our own human cells. And maybe the garden did literally happen in some manner, for me I see it as the fruit of the dual tree brought us into the matrix of flesh. Right before Adam and Eve leave the garden,God gives them garments of skin. Many people say that is the first sacrifice, but it doesn't say that. And it doesn't say animal skin either. The garment isn't any ordinary garment. The word is the same as used for Josephs technicolor dream coat. Garments is quite an interesting topical study, and has to do with covering, and glory, like the cherubim who cover. These are veils, and Jesus the last Adam, who we (by we I mean some now, all eventually) bear the image of the heavenly, entered into the Holy of Holies the Qodesh of Qodesh, through the Veil "that is his flesh" (Hebrews). He entered back into the garden of eden (the temple/tabernacle/'heaven') through the veil (that is woven with cherubim), into God's rest (the seventh day).

If I didn't address your point enough please forgive me, and point it out and I'll look more.