It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
it's still just the interpretation of an event or symbol by somebody who interpreted (or completely imagined) something else, who then wrote it down, where it was then interpreted by a dozen other people. It's all 10th-hand telephone game knowledge that you can twist another 1,000 ways, if you want to.
Originally posted by jibajaba
justifies my acceptance of Sitchin...and...since they are mortal but seem to live for literally 100's of thousands of years...they surely are still here...and...i'm not calling you shirley(jk)
in the years 600-800 A.D., in short, it's when the Merovigs first and then the Carolings ruled over Europe. I mean that while Charlemagne was building his Holy Roman Empire by the lake of Galiliee, one family, which was Moshez ben Aaron ben Asher's family, defined the Bible as we know it. This family was in conflict with other families: they represented the Tiberias school. There was the Palestinian school, the Samaritan one, the Babylonian one. They won. And now we have the Bible that they put together.
If someone else would have won, we now would have a potentially different Bible. Why? because the first Bible was written as a sequence of consonants [no spaces, no vowels]. That means that the work made by those guys named Masorets - "the Keepers of the tradition" - was in first place to determine the words, that is, splitting the row of consonants and determining the words that can be split and established in many different ways. The second work they made was inserting the vowels, that were not there. And inserting the vowels actually means inserting the meaning of the words.
...
So, one thing we should know is that the only certainty we have is that we know that we don't know. Ok? this is a matter of fact. We don't even know how the Bible was vocalized when they wrote it. At the time when most of the Bible's events happened, above all the fundamental ones, Hebrew didn't even exist as a language. When many names were pronounced, Hebrew didn't exist, Moses didn't speak Hebrew. In the desert, they didn't speak Jewish during the exodus. If we like, if we want to believe they spoke some sort of Semitic language but I doubt it, they spoke some form of Amorite, then maybe they began to speak some form of Aramaic and later, a couple centuries later, Jewish began to shape, which is actually a transformed Sub-Phoenician.
Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Originally posted by Jordan River
I've studied ancient scriptures enough to know this is B.S. Any one with a brain would know that God is an alien (not a physical alien) but a spiritual multi dimensional omnipresnce alien (cause we dont associate with God on a physical realm/level
We are not here to debate the nature of the one and only god(if there is such a thing) we are here to debate the creators of either life on this planet or the human species. God might have made the universe but aliens can still make humans from apes. Try to keep up.
Well I believe in the panspermia theory of the creation of life through asteroids, comets, etc
I dont think the title of this thread is "Tell me your theories of the origins of life on this planet"
so if thats the agenda you're trying to push or thats the subject you want to discuss why dont you make a thread of your own that relates to that topic? As you can see we already have a subject to discuss here.
Originally posted by SavedOne
For those that haven't watched the clip yet, the first 10 minutes is basically just the guy explaining his credentials and his translation process. He mentions that the original Hebraic language did not contain vowels and that over the centuries translators inserted vowels to interpret the texts and its his position that inserting vowels added unintended meaning. It's not until around the 10 minute mark that he even touches on an instance of what he considers a mistranslation and he hits on a word that he believes describes a UFO rather than the traditional meaning of it being "God's spirit". Unfortunately he doesn't get very far into this explanation before the clip ends and we're left with the rather annoying "to be continued".
Overall I'm left with the impression that he's just trying to sell a book (which is mentioned in the clip). There have been many scholars that have looked at the texts over the centuries and there has been general consensus that overall, the translations are accurate. This process in fact continues today, scholars are still poring over the Dead Sea scrolls and comparing them to accepted Bible translations to see how they compare, and the reports have been that the modern accepted translations are indeed surprisingly close to the original texts.
He touches on the argument in the clip that the Bible as we know it was assembled in later years (hundreds of years after Christ) and it could have been assembled differently and potentially the meaning would have been different. I agree with him on that point, had the Book of Enoch or other apocryphal texts been included then the Bible would have a slightly different feel than it does, but I've read those texts and while they do present some concepts that don't quite align with modern religious teachings they don't substantially change the message either. He's mixing some truth in with his own brand of reinterpretation to grant himself some credibility that I don't think he really has.
Originally posted by JohnnyFever
Dang, I Love this stuff.. I've been waiting for someone to come out and say this for a while now.
Does anyone know if Biglino has a book out written with English translation? I've searched the internet and found nothing. He shows it in one video, but I can't find it anywhere/???
Is it being blocked out ??? I need a copy or 3...
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Originally posted by EricD
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by scary
The Pope claimed to be Jesus, that's enough for me to write off anything that comes from Roman Catholicism.
No, he didn't. The Pope did not claim to be Jesus.
But the OP is claiming that the translator was actually fired by the Vatican, so that should be a plus in your book, right?
Eric
Pope Pius X was quoted saying these exact words:"The Pope is the Human representative of Christ on earth and he is Christ himself"
So yeah the Pope did claim this, and no Pope after him refuted it either. Furthermore the word "Pope" means "Father" and Jesus forbade any man to claim that he was our Father because we only have one Father and he's not on earth.
Originally posted by Ollie769
Apparently, thanks to the Internet more than anything else, NEW translations of a very difficult language to understand, let alone master, such as Hebrew, are being disseminated much more frequently all the time. You have to admit that accuracy, as a surrogate for truth, has been the first casualty, though.
I have not had the time to read through all 11 pages of this discussion but has anyone been to "The Chronical Project" at www.thechronicleproject.org... This group has been making a complete reexamination of the Hebrew language and text of the Torah and other Hebrew texts which has yeilded some very surprising information in itself much as Binglino's studies have produced. Like Binglino they have yet, to my knowledge, recieved any kind of recognition from "established" educational institutions, churches or other religeous groups for their work. Indeed, if they had any attention at all paid to them it was to condemn them as the Vatican has with Biglino. It's not surprising to me, though. Once a market is cornered you NEVER let it go! Not in your lifetime or in the ages to come!
Originally posted by NewtonDKC
Wow, sorry took me so long to post part 2 of my post, for anyone who bothers reading it - didn't realize so many people would post so much in the between times! :-)
Originally posted by NowanKenubi
Am I allowed to post the same question I did earlier and that went right under the radar? Here it is...
Sorry and thanks, simultaneously.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
who then wrote it down, where it was then interpreted by a dozen other people. It's all 10th-hand telephone game knowledge that you can twist another 1,000 ways, if you want to.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
so, just got done with video 3
did he suggest space smells like burnt meat?
wtf
if it does, then erm..why? and if he doesn't, can we then simply toss out this hypothesis and the baby with the bathwater?
hmm..how would someone test that...stick their head out of a shuttle and breath in doesn't seem like a good idea..
___
nevermind, started 4 and he explains (sort of) the smell in a pod. ok..no barbecue space smell...pity really, space would make me hungry.edit on 20-1-2012 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)