"gods from outer space" by von daniken

[alma]

He wrote "chariot of the gods" which i never read, as far as i can remember.
--but, it appears that he wrote another one called "gods from outer space" in 1968 with nine more printings.

I can't believe it!

As i've told you before, i read Gods Who Were Men many years ago, in the 50s by yerrill and yerrill.

It was my first introduction to these thoughts, i think.

When i brought the book back to the library, and tried to get it again, they said it had been sent out to be rebound, but it never came back and did not need to be fixed in the first place.

That's where i got the title for the things i have written on the forum a couple of times, "Gods Who Were Men", is pretty much along the same lines.

In 1954 or so, i wrote to Maurice Jessup who wrote, "UFO and the Bible" and told him how pleased i was with his works, and he asked me to send him all i had, and i did.

He was very enthusiastic and planned to write about moses, but he was found dead along the highway and it was a presumed suicide, so god only knows what happened to his works, and also whatever i, and others, had sent him.

He was always collecting ideas from all over the world about misc. things, and the government wanted this book and another of his.

He knew something about the philadenlphia expirement with making things "invisible, but i think it was really about making magnetic waves, or something, invisible to be detected in war machines, and not invisilbe people, but some people made it into that, and it sure confused the issue about what the government may have been doing.

He had collected all kinds of ideas from everywhere and had hit upon something that the government apparently didn't want talked about except to distract people every way they could from what was really going on.

Well, anyway, his book, UFO and the bible was great. I still have that one, but not the other one the govt got, too.

--and now i have von daniken's "Gods From Outer Space". I have only begun to read it, but he tell about lots of other people of renoun who have given these things some thought.

I"m sorry my stuff has gone off the board, but i had a pamphlet printed up and bound re these things and a floppy disk, and love the thought that men may very well have come from outer space, and taught the earthmen of old many things to go back to teach the people.

I think many of these became "holy" men of renoun from our various religions precisely because of what they had learned from these "gods" who were really men.

T he bible is loaded with allusions to things that lifted off the earth, and landed, and took many men of old up into high mountains to teach them.

Ezekiel is one, and one such vehicle is mentioned among so may others, if we could break away from our various dogmas.

The ultimate god is still god no matter what we think, and if people realized these things they would know that all religions started from this source, and not be fighting for power, by dividing the spoils, and bringing this earth to the brink of destruction.
--if the truth about the origins of all these various world religion is not realized on time.

From the way we are behaving, maybe we are a special threat to the entire universe, and may have to be visited again.

Do you supposed that if jesus returned from outer space, we would nuke him because of our lack of the essentaial knowledge that is clear in the bible, once the blinkers are taken off and people who have eyes can see, and people who have ears can hear above the din of false religions. love, alma

[scottie12]

Hi alma - yea ,this is an interesting topic .

I dont necessarily think that one has to believe that any historical persons were of the god-sort or communicated with them , (and according to' genisis' scholars' , early translations of the 'god ' terminologies were plural) .

I think that the best argument in favor of a god-influence on earthlings is just a matter of probability. (not Intelligent design but Probability).

Because ; if the best probability of a similar thing, meaning ; ( the occurance of human-like life-forms happening in the future on a barren planet ) is by the willful act of another entity , then why isnt it the best probability for the past as well ? Ive talked about this theory with atheists, it seems to stump them , but I've never talked of it with non-atheists -I'm sure they wont like it either .

My biggest problem with most ' historical' theories is the confusion and stagnant nature of them for group-related reasons .(and the monopoly aspect)

Most would think that i am too 'atheistic' to propose such a thing ,( as ' the laws of probability promoting the presence of gods) I'm sure . But ....yada-yada...

And the nature of the probability aspect is the part that ppl will find offensive I suppose , but it's just theoretical for _________ sake. And I refuse to respond to any derrogatory remarks about it . ( I dont mean you Alma !)

To possibly clarify where I'm coming from , it seems to me that for imagination's sake its just better to start considering the existance of an easier to believe thing than a version of it thats unimaginable or beyond comprehension . (if that makes any sense ).

So, the key to rationally believing in the possibility of an almighty , mightier than man 'guide to humanity' is to first consider the possibility of a lesser than almighty .

My thinking on the subject goes like this .

It is quite obvious that humans- , having been ,such a short time ago , confined to travelling on horseback, having to hunt down and kill other creatures for daily survival etc.etc ., - are capable of (considering modern technical advances ) marvellous leaps in knoledge and abilities and this evolutionary- rapidity- potential just increases the probability viability (theoretically).
And-
Getting back to "probability"-

Its easy to imagine 'us puny humans ' in a few centuries , being able to start a colony of humans, humanoids , or made to order creatures , transporting them to another planet (europa moon, or mars ).

Could we resist the scientific urge to observe them and then just leave our creation to itself ?

No , I think we would have to watch , we would even have to meddle .

Would they think that we existed?
What would they imagine about us ?
What would they write about us ?
Would the new martians in the north see us the same way as the new martians in the south and would they fight about it ?
Would we be secretive and mysterious in our interactions with them ?

I think its ironic that the best argument for "god' is also the worst argument for what we want god to be, but
that's my best theory regarding the potential of physical gods .

Oh -and did ya know that a japanese scientists 'has' invented a cloak that makes things 'invisible' ?

[billy_goat_gruff]

scottie, quit stealing my Modus Operandi!!! I'm supposed to be the confusing one on here! :D

I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Will you rephrase it, short and simple for me? Would appreciate it.

alma, some of von Daniken's stuff has been shown to be other than he presented it. However, there are still anomalies out there. Some passages of the Mahabharata can only be considered as describing atomic warfare based on current knowledge.

Here is a link to keep your mind turning. You should find Part 2 interesting, and it struck me as less mercenary than von Daniken (he sold lots of books!) As for me, my answer is still "I wasn't there so I don't know."
http://nexusmagazine.com/articles/ancatomicwar1.html

[scottie12]

Gruff - So, You want a new theory(new theory ?) of the possibility of the existance of god , reduced to 'how many words '?
You think I'm a genius or something ?
I made it as short as possible , I think .
But I'll try to add some clarification ?

I'm basically saying that It doesnt seem necessary ,to me , that in order to suppose that there are higher beings in our multi-uni-verse ,' that might possibly have had something to do with our existance ', that we must automatically jump to the conclusion that the nature of this this entity is as our present mythologies and perceptions dictate
and that our own reasoning and imagination can easily and more rationally percieve of such an entity , who is capable of performing all the things that we have attributed to our present 'entity model' (using the logic of our own abilities and percieved future abilities ) along with the increase in the the viability of a probability for a thing to have been caused by dynamics that we see in existance already , as opposed to magic .

In other words - I'm comtemplating the possibility , that we are the children of a lesser god than we suppose , though , in my thinking , this only eventually leads , even more rationally to the assumption of an even more
evolved entity , out there , somewhere ?

[billy_goat_gruff]

Hey, scottie. Thanks for the re-word, thought that is where you were going but thought I'd ask to be sure.

new theory - nope, an old one tho perhaps? *:D *
There is nothing new under the sun.
you think I'm a genius nope, but smart enough to think
Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.
How about we talk about the other guy? God always gets talked about... *:-/

In this dog-eat-dog universe, what would the other guy be like? A blue-eyed blonde, or swarthy with eyes of midnight, ? ? ?

Ever watch old re-runs of Star Trek? Specifically, the "Wolf in the Fold" episode? I will let your mind take it from there with a nod to the old doctrine that this world belongs to the fallen one... could explain a few things... *;)
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Original-Episode-Wolf/dp/6300213404

And, have you ever thought about being a timber marketer? Haven't a clue as to how to get into it but it might provide something other than the other choices out there. The middle man between the standing timber owners and the sawmill, or crafter... Yuppers, I'll shut up now as I'm poking into business not my own...

Think about that episode, the other fella, and analogies... White haired old dude with fiery eyes, why, that's me! Wonder what God looks like? Surely, not like me... * :D * *;D

[scottie12]

well gruff -My words have failed me again-
of course its not new (the theory )- but it seems to be taboo , huh.
And that taboo-ity seems to make it new'conceptually' to most minds .

Re: The other guy - Why bother ? - does there need to be an other guy ? I dont think so !

Yea : I like those old star treks - but Ive sworn off tv , for the most part , as a mental self-defense and remedy for heart-burn , so the wheat is lost with chaff.I guess.

Re: timber marketing = NO !! Or at least only on a small pratical level .
I'm trying to devote myself to non-destructive methods of financing my life . Meaning I would rather grow something where nothing is growing than to un-necessarily destroy something as beautiful as a tree. I do love trees!

[billy_goat_gruff]

Must be getting old. Am telling stories with advice in them if one has travelled near my path close enough to hear... *:-/

my words have failed me
What good are tools if one doesn't use them effectively? Words have power - to build and to destroy. But that is obvious from the world around us, huh? *::)

taboo and conceptually new
Are you sure it isn't just bread and circuses? Could be that many just don't worry about it since their belly is full and they have entertainment to distract them. What more could life offer but bread and circuses (a rhetorical question there, no answer needed.)

does there need to be an other guy
This is where the rubber meets the road, and in my opinion why so many have a problem with accepting God as existing. If there is a God then there has to be an other guy, or else this is heaven which I kinda doubt. Without the other guy, or God, then there are no universal constants and no responsibility. The argument usually goes the other way though. "The devil made me do it!!" Don't think so, think we chose to do it that way and blamed the other one to escape consequences. But, I have been wrong before so take it for what it is worth.

sworn off tv
There are many mindless things out there to do, tv for the most part is one of them IMO. Mindless things usually turn into additions, and... I still watch tv and movies, but do find myself checking license plates of the cars in them for actual locale. *;D * *The tv is an inanimate object after all.

unnecessarily destroy something
Life is a gift given by other living things through their death. Food, shelter, etc. Growing a tree in a petri dish could get interesting though (Hey! just kidding you on that one.) As for trees, there is stewardship. I too love trees, big old trees that I can't reach around, but think I'll continue to think of gods and other ones as energy creatures who also have to eat. Emotions are energy also, aren't they? What a cold god a tree would be...

My thoughts anyway. Use, abuse, lose... yours to do with as you see fit. Till next time.

[alma]

Just came across an old floppy with a book i downloaded by patrick cooke named the greatest deception.
Don't know where where it can be found, maybe searching the web or amazon, or something.
It is quite a study but i have only touched the surface bowsing through it.
Anyone who is an avid reader would do well to check it out, re the subject at hand .
deep stuff, not for me. love, alma
p.s. I don't understand half of what you guys are talking about. don't know anything about *star trek, either.
--but that's ok. i know what i think i know, and that is enough for me, i think.
Thanks for the web site. It sure looks good to me. Will read it tomorrow in part.

[billy_goat_gruff]

alma, alma, alma... *:)

I suspect you understand more than you let on. This is the third time you've posted this topic on the forum, and this is the second time I've responded to the thread. I have nothing new for you, the links have changed but the information hasn't...

scottie appears to be attempting to use incrementalism and the concept of evolution as proof there is a god, or will eventually be a god. Your gods who are men follow a similar thought process. To me it seems little more than self-agrandizement, or species-agrandizement, since we too will someday have the technological prowess to be gods.

Both concepts fail in my opinion due to dependence on time and evolution. Incrementalism requires increments and that requires time flow. Going forward in time, it is a great theory; going backwards to the beginning hits the same problem evolution has always had - where did the atoms come from originally, who was the original God that didn't evolve...

Unless you are willing to entertain the paradox of a god evolving and then evoking god powers to extend himself/herself/itself backward and forward into all time...

Or, are you willing to accept that time flows backwards in the universe also. That would be interesting as then you have gods evolving on both forward and backwards time flows...

The reviews of the book you recommended says that the book blows holes in evolution. They say it also blows holes in the Bible accounts. Sounds to me like the problem may be with the Bible. No biggie, there are lots of folks who don't like the book so just say so and get it over with.

The Star Trek episode mentioned proposes an energy creature that feeds on fear. It manipulates the population to ensure a food supply. Such a creature sounds a lot like what is written about the deceiver, Satan, the devil, whatever you want to call it. Our world seems to be in the grip of such a creature, or a similar one that feeds on power trips (meglomania?) or greed.

The thought of energy creatures feeding on fear, hate, greed leads inevitably to others that feed on love, peace, etc., and conflict between such creatures. Good and bad... Nature's rules are harsh and tend to be a zero sum game in my experience.

The rest was cautioning scottie to be careful of what he accepts as truth in a rough and tumble way.

The Bible says that the first commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind (paraphrased.) *Reverse engineering of that concept says that whatever one loves above all else IS their god.

What is your god, alma? Technology, a man, a personality trait, ? ? ? *Hard question there, and I've wrestled with it for a while...

Have a good day out there.

[alma]

Well, bill goat, i am really NOT very bright.
I am just telling you some things i have observed in the bible for years, take it or leave it.

I have no ulterior motive, and, Yes, i have written about it on the forum before because it is very important to me, and i want to share it and get all the feedback i can.

It's sorta like exhorting and rebuking that is mentioned in the new testament.

I understood jessup's u.f.o. and the bible and yerrill and yerril's works, but the others i've mentioned are recent books that i've come across, and have only skimmed through, and believe they are too much for me.

I am not educated beyond high school and don't understand even some of the concepts you
present, and that is all there is too it.

I have no one to discuss this stuff with that cares to talk about it, so haven't had much feed back on it, other than on the forum, where it all hangs out.

I have written many booklettes about a lot of things and this is my favorite subject, except for one about the sixties and my exploits there and then.

You will just have to forgive me for what i don't know or understand.

About MY God. The infinite power and presence is spiritual in nature, not made of time and space as we are, absolute, i guess, but am not sure of anything at all.

Nothing is written in stone as far as i am concerned. That's why i call my self agnostic because i think it means that i don't know anything for sure, nor do i believe that anyone else does, either.

Mankind is relative, being made of time and space, material, i think.

As i've said before many times, how can the relative understand the absolute except what is revealed to him or her, really.

Maybe that's where jesus comes in. I sure don't know, as an intermediate, but much is lost in translation, even there, i believe, and what he/she/it said or didn't say is up for grabs.

It has been turned into mud pies like everthing else that man touches, tries to define and refine, and loses the spirit in the letter, as is written, too.

I see the stars at night, and the sun and blue sky during the day, and the sunshine, and wonder many things.

I see the grass and all the food and medicine that nature delivers to my door, forever, and wonder why we don't stop to learn about them.

There may come a time when that is all we have to eat, the dandilions and plantain, the german camolile and all the other "weeds" that we trod under our feet, and cut down as if they were nothing without giving them a thought and listening to what they have to tell us.

Altnature.com gives a rundown on all of these edible plants, with pics and all.

God, supposedly, said in the old testament, "I AM that I AM", and that was his name and a memorial forever, and i wonder why the only I AM that i ever hear is us blabbing about how great we are, and all the wonderous things we have done, and i wonder why we worship jesus as god and sing his praises, and seldom hear a word about the name he gave to himself.

I, to me, means the closest presence to me, the here. Am is the most imminent time that i can know, the now. etc. etc.

I'm tired, and want to go back to bed, and expect that you do too. Didn't get much sleep last night.

I hope you will forgive me for thinking and musing outloud and for not being politically or religiously correct.

I give you all i've got, and what more can i say. No apoplogies for being ME. love, alma

[scottie12]

[quote]scottie appears to be attempting to use incrementalism and the concept of evolution as proof there is a god, or will eventually be a god. Your gods who are men follow a similar thought process. To me it seems little more than self-agrandizement, or species-agrandizement, since we too will someday have the technological prowess to be gods.

I understand what your saying here gruff , but I'm definatly not saying there is proof or that the probability that we will reach such a status means that the same dynamics were influencial in our 'coming to be' or the process of our history . We could be the first (doubt that a lot ) or there could be many others whose genetic material floated through space to infect the earth by mingling with our life-forms and producing us,' the humanoid retards '. And they may have no care or knoledge of us .
I am saying that its an akams razor sort of proposition , I guess! But I dont rule out other possibilities ; that would be boring and un-intelligent !



[quote]Both concepts fail in my opinion due to dependence on time and evolution. Incrementalism requires increments and that requires time flow. Going forward in time, it is a great theory; going backwards to the beginning hits the same problem evolution has always had - where did the atoms come from originally, who was the original God that didn't evolve...

well gruff - My predictable friend -you've done it again - changed the question !
Changed it from the consideration of what constitutes 'god' as is necessitated by our peculiar existance here and that historical process ,to the question of that first being .
and that first being could possibly(and probably) be unknown forever and still have no (or an infintessimal ) direct effect on us , but obviously this "god " ideology that we consider to rule our very lives directly does have considerable daily direct effects , and thats the one I'm talking about , though, 'the first one ' is also a very interesting subject as well. I personally think we should reach a consensus on the more immediate version so as to help us stop killing each others children in his name .
and concerning ('the original God that didn't evolve... ')
I would caution you as well on what you accept as truth , meaning why must one think that the original one is not still evolving , or got run over by an asteroid ?


[quote]Unless you are willing to entertain the paradox of a god evolving and then evoking god powers to extend himself/herself/itself backward and forward into all time...

i think your saying that paradoxical things cant exist simutaneously , but I've seen pictures of aboriginee tribal humans living primitive existances in the jungles , that were taken in the same time period as other images of white men dancing on the moon , and many other such paradoxical things , so I dont agree!

[alma]

WOTCHA TALKIN BOUT, GUYS?
My thing is so simple, and you're making it too complex even for me to undestand my own concept, the way you guys put it. Damn, where did i go wrong? Love, alma

[bookwormom]

hi Alma:)
I think I have three or four of Däniken's books and have read most of the ones he wrote.
I think I can relate somewhat.
One thing is for sure, there is a lot more than we even can dream and there are some things we understand as much as my goat understands the multiplication tables.
Of course, "gods" is from the human view point. quite understandable. I have wondered why the ancient egyptions were so adamant about preserving their bodies, and why it was so important for their future life to have their physical body, as if they were trying to preserve their DNA. I find it all very interesting. There are some very interesting and unusual things in the Bible. that usually get passed over and ignored. for instance that a certain group, not everybody, just that groupd, is promised the EArth, and another group is promised the Morning star, which we all know is Venus. well, just my 25 cents worth (inflation you know) .

[scottie12]

WOTCHA TALKIN BOUT, GUYS?
My thing is so simple, and you're making it too complex even for me to undestand my own concept, the way you guys put it. Damn, where did i go wrong? Love, alma

Sorry alma - i guess the devil made me do it ?
And If I werent bad enuff by myself , gruff just encourages me , fer fun , I think ! I do enjoy trying to predict which directions his thoughts will go though !
I'm hoping you'll finish reading that book and give us the summary soon ?

[billy_goat_gruff]

alma, scottie is trying his hand at being a psychologist... or a politician. Those folks are always trying to figure out what "is" is!!! Or redefining some natural nervousness as a new disease!!! :D

On a more serious note - alma, you have seen a lot and experience counts more than smart sometimes, most times.

My thoughts are above, my last post was to you on the level you come across as to me. My mom has an eighth grade education. High school for your generation is better than some college degrees now. Most of my thoughts concerning this topic are derived from philosophical, religious or science fiction themes I've encountered.

Last time we frustrated each other and I don't want to go there again. Perhaps it is the male - female thing where the guy wonders why the gal has to talk, talk, talk... and the gal wonders what is wrong because the guy isn't talking. Nothing is wrong, we are just being us.

You are absolutely correct - that is you, and that is that, and I'm not demanding you change. Kinda futile to do that, IMO. Ever think that maybe sometimes others aren't as smart as you are in some things.

Sounds like your God is also mine. Add a touch of forever stuff (soul) to that recipe for man who is made of time and space material and you have my thought on mankind also.

scottie, I'm afraid I don't accept you as a dictionary. So, pick a dictionary to use and we can go farther, otherwise, my thoughts on the matter is that we are just playing at conversation since there are no common meanings to the so-called words that are being used. I don't want to do that so I won't. Edited after ten minutes of thought so that there should be less chance of confusion.

Be aware, however, I do enjoy using words in context of their lesser known meanings, but those meanings will be in a common resource, not made up on the fly.

A couple of the ones you may have missed -
God - immutable, omni-everything
god - mutable, relative to something or someone
truth - immutable, unknowable in its entirity.

As to changing the question, are you sure you didn't change my answer? My answer was that there are many gods that make children and parents die, but no God that does that. If some wish to call the entity that feeds on fear, hate and greed "god," so be it. I can re-label sarin as oxygen but it will still cause me to bleed out.

[alma]

Well, anyway, everyone knows all you guys are from mars, and us womens are all from venus, and that about sums it all up. Ha! love, alma

[billy_goat_gruff]

Hey, alma, must be that guy thing again... I know the ladies are supposed to get the last word but... :-/

I think you just spoke one of those true truths. Amen, even!

And, congrats to you and Bill. That took some doing, IMO, but you guys did it. Laterz...

[scottie12]

Ohh, Gruff ol buddy , dont be so sensitive ?

[quote]scottie, I'm afraid I don't accept you as a dictionary.
Just a minute gruff - I gotta go look up-'forever-stuff'. and see if 'bread and circuses ' is an approved metaphor for life.

[quote]So, pick a dictionary to use and we can go farther, otherwise, my thoughts on the matter is that we are just playing at conversation since there are no common meanings to the so-called words that are being used. I don't want to do that so I won't.

Well buddy- I did look in my world book dictionary(you got one ?) under 'god' and they seem to agree that there are several definitions and 'plays on the word ', like goddess and such. But I understand if your are tired and need a nap or somethin ; conversations can be hard work with all those different meanings of words and their effects on concepts and communications .

[quote]Edited after ten minutes of thought so that there should be less chance of confusion.
Well, one can only wonder , I guess!

[quote]Be aware, however, I do enjoy using words in context of their lesser known meanings, but those meanings will be in a common resource, not made up on the fly.

so - you support that there be no more changes made to the dictionary . HUH- what will we call the new things we discover from now on then ?
I dont see why we cant re-define some words if we need to to make them fit a new or unfamiliar concept - I dont even mind stopping a conversation sometimes to clarify definitions , I think its often necessary .
Mr. Webster was not god .(at least, according to my dictionary).
Now that I have my dictionary out -I think I'll look up 'contrarian'

[daphodil]

Hi alma, have you ever listened to Coast to Coast? with George Noory sp? I think that's his name.

He is on very late at night--usually around midnight on a.m. stations across the country. He often does these UFO type shows.

I prefer the ghost type shows, but I thought you might see if you can pick up his station--older radios seem to work better.

[aside] dh went on this radio kick a couple years back--I mean we were getting all sorts of radios in the mail. Even mentioned it to his mom--geez, we are getting radio after radio in the mail off of ebay--(it was kind of scary.)]

So, he discovered that new modern radios don't have the a.m. pick up that older ones do--I forget the reason. Smaller magnets or something.

Sorry to digress, but this radio program sounds like something that might float your boat. Often the programs are about UFOs visiting--not sure if they are in the context of actually being biblical, etc. like what you're are interested in. He does have a LOT of different guests on, though, that he interviews and, though, I think they are mostly off their rocker, he seems to act like everyone is being most earnest.

[billy_goat_gruff]

Hey, scottie,
"bread and circuses" is definitely an approved metaphor, at least for those who "peel out." *:D * Edit - sorry bout that. Now you know what the edit was, I used a metaphor instead of simple words the first time around.

sensitive, don't think so, more frustration than sensitivity, I suspect. You have something to say, and I don't think I am capable of hearing at this point in time.

maybe it is a generational thing. I mean, the world book dictionary is a two volume set, don'tcha know (yuppers, have a set but usually use wikipedia now-a-days.) Does clarify for me what alma may be feeling though.

ya got a deal on stopping the conversation to clarify meanings, but, I'm still hearing incrementalism and the feedback says that that isn't a good rephrasing.

As for Mr. Webster's book, I beg to differ... it was a god, just not a God. (mutable vs. immutable anyone? *:D )

You know, a nap does sound good, now that you mention it...

later, gater... *:)

[fredusa]

'Gruff, daggone it---you screwed up your definitions, once again!
God---(yup) Omni everything
god---yup, kind of an "in charge sort, but of highly bounded, and quite particular, things.
(here's where you went wrong, buddie)
truth---an acceptance of something tangible by some one or a group of someones.
Truth---inviolable, absolute, and (most likley IMHO)unknowable on an individual level!
Hey, alma, glad you are still running this movie---it's one of my favorites, and I thank you for this thread.
Scottie---'Gruff does the same to me--and, frankly, I love him for it! He has an exceptional mind and thought capacity. You are showing signs of same! Now, perhaps BOTH of you need to get the same dictionary ;), and the same encyclopedia ('Gruff loves Wikopedia, BTW),and we can get some rousing discussions going, eh?
Oh, alma, von Daniken wrote a number of these books, I think I've read them all. (Try to get a copy of "Gold of the Gods"---great stuff in that one!) He makes some extremely good observations, and, while some claim to have demostrated they have "proved" him wrong, I've yet to see such "proof". Remembering, of course, that it's only "proof" if the other guy accepts it as such!
Now, though, alma, you need to tie in what von Daniken says with what such men as Zach Sitchin say, also, along with physics, and probabilities, and possibilities, and throw in some of your own observations as well---and, alma, remind me of who it was who wrote the book "Worlds in Collision", okay---this old mind forgets sometimes, eh?

[billy_goat_gruff]

Hey, fred,
Well, looks to me like your list is better than mine. I'll take it anyway, even if Truth and God look a lot alike from down here on the mudball... ;D

What am I missing in scottie's posts? I go wandering off on the wrong tangents when trying to "say back" in my unique way of speaking. Er, you didn't call karma down on me for all the times I've attempted to leave you scratching your head, did you? Well, if you did, it worked...

Here is the guy you are looking for (from wikipedia even! ;D )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

And another guy that alma used to try to keep up with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Put me down as Sodom and Gommorah getting nuked, btw, either by "gods who were men" or by alien races. And, put me down as aliens being referred to as angels and demons many times...

Nope, don't have a clue as to where they fit into Truth... ???

[alma]

I've got at least 4 of velikovsky's books. Anyone interested.
I'm thinkin, Fred first, or anyone else after that.

Can't find my hardbacks at the moment, ages in chaos or world's in collision.

Have a paper back worlds in collision, hardbacks Earth in Upheaval, Mankind in Amnesia, and Memoriors to worlds in collision.

Don't know where others are at moment. Must be somewhere around here.

Got too many old books that i'll never read again.
Freebies. Pay for postage. love, alma

[billy_goat_gruff]

alma, you're a good egg.

I have too many of my own that someday I'll have to find a home for though.

[scottie12]

[quote]
Put me down as Sodom and Gommorah getting nuked, btw, either by "gods who were men" or by alien races.

Who wrote that story about sodom and gommora ?
I wonder if was the same person who claimed that Noah put all those critters on that little boat ?
it seems to me was all probably just what happens when the anti-gay marriage ppl get really , really pissed off!


[quote]And, put me down as aliens being referred to as angels and demons many times...

i agree with you about how hard it is to communicate without agreed-upon definitions - I think the biblical- stuff
discussions -are more difficult than any other , cuz of what-all they've done to that book (the translators ).

i'll give you a few examples fro memory -
-Hell translates as gehenna which translates as a garbage dump.
-Satan -translates as the adversary
- angel - as a helper
-demon, I'm told ,comes from the greek word for Knoledge ( that figures dont it ?)
Thats a strange little book ; seems to me that the fact that it's stood the test of time is more mind boggling than anything thats written in it !

[billy_goat_gruff]

Who wrote that story about sodom and gommora ?
Now that is a good question, but a better one might be what paper was it written upon. That is a metaphor, the meaning of which is that stories are written every day on the pages of time by ordinary men and women.

Ever heard the Ballad of Ira Hayes by Johnny Cash? That one is written on paper, but the actual story was written on the pages of time by men with only the wind as witness somewhere on a mountain top in the midst of a lot of water long ago. The paper version even gets a whole lot of the facts right as recorded by cameras and other pieces of paper, but don't think it can ever write Ira Hayes as anything other than pathetic hero (which he wasn't if you listen to Ira Hayes' words just a bit.)

The wind could tell the story of Sodom and Gammorrah the best, but who has time and the ability to listen to the neverending wind. So, I guess I'll read the ink marks written in the Torah, Qur'an, and Bible...

Guess I'd have to say that Lot, or Lut, and his family wrote those stories. The winners always get to write history, or so they say...

Do you realize that the Torah seems to indicate that Sodom and Gammorrah's true reason for distruction was something along the lines of being too greedy, too unwilling to help those less fortunate, too much "I've got mine, you get yours." Supposedly Lot's daughter's cry as her execution was begun for giving to the poor was what was heard on high and her cry brought the brimstone down to even the scale.

You know, sounds almost like the "ink and paper" story about Atlantis, doesn't it? Sometimes I wonder what the men of Atlantis and the Rama Empire wrote upon the pages of time back then, but, will never know. According to some, Atlantis also had that "I've got mine, you get yours" attitude. And the Rama Empire died because they wanted to keep theirs...

Perhaps Atlantis never was, or their weapons caused an imbalance that sank them... Perhaps Sodom and Gammorrah was blown to bits by a natural gas deposit which was released by a minor earthquake on a supernaturally calm day and formed one big fuel air bomb, or perhaps they never were...

Don't know who the men and women and aliens and gods were that wrote stories on the pages of time. That wasn't my time.

This is my time and put me down as "Sodom and Gammorrah" getting nuked, with or without those old prophesies. I know of some prophesies in my time that didn't come true due to folks giving up drinking while driving at 140 mph. I also know of some in my time that came true...

The future isn't written in stone. We choose it, both individually and collectively and can change it anytime we want, assuming we don't have debts known as consequences coming due over past actions. My opinion anyway...

translations
Do you know how many Eskimo words translate to the one (1) English word "snow?" I tend to agree that translations lose things, but not sure that I'll agree that they are lost forever. Just may take someone who will make up a new word with the old flavor in the meaning. Adding new flavor to existing words, well, stew is nice but sometimes one wants to taste the meat without the potato flavoring... Another metaphor there. I'll let it stand.

[scottie12]

[quote]
Now that is a good question, but a better one might be what paper was it written upon.
Deja-vue, ha ha
[quote]Ever heard the Ballad of Ira Hayes by Johnny Cash?
-well no! so I'll have to pass.
[quote]The wind could tell the story of Sodom and Gammorrah the best, but who has time and the ability to listen to the neverending wind. So, I guess I'll read the ink marks written in the Torah, Qur'an, and Bible...
scott says - to each his own , but for myself , when logic demands that the validity of an information source be
accertained by a careful analysys and 'comparison' of all its subject matter to what nature demands us to consider as honorable truth-seeking, and when; 'it' then fails to measure up to any of these test , that source must be relegated to its proper place in the discourse among intelligent , truth -seeking , progress-minded folks .,
the proper place being as I see it , though, not entirely , as a book of fairy-tales , devised as shortcuts and obstacles to understanding concepts , that the writers wished to simplify for those with weak-spirits and challenged intellects, to be used concurrently , as a tool for powerful ppl to monopolise those concepts among those said masses for the purpose of manipulating and preverting the concepts and thereby the actions of those 'addicted to them as a source of guidance for their personal behaviors '.
i see the continuing presence as a manifestation of the worst human disease ; meaning -Eleutherophobia.
and its use in human discourse as usually 'a shortcut to intellectuall derailment ' !
[quote]Do you realize that the Torah seems to indicate that Sodom and Gammorrah's true reason for distruction was something along the lines of being too greedy, too unwilling to help those less fortunate, too much "I've got mine, you get yours." Supposedly Lot's daughter's cry as her execution was begun for giving to the poor was what was heard on high and her cry brought the brimstone down to even the scale.
scott thinks that; Well , I would have to re-read that , but taking your word for it , I'd say theres a good moral lessen there, for sure, for those who cant otherwise come to such conclusions , but I still have a problem with the counter effects that imposing morality through implanting perceptions 'through fairy-tales' has on(adult) ppl , leaving them without that historical understanding of the thinking process that would leave them with the ability to come to such conclusions on their own using that same learned process regarding all manner of dilemas that life will throw at them as opposed to always having to seek that preacher to console, organise , and re-train their thinking concerning all those 'intermingled with morality' contradictictions and reality bending fairy-tale
metaphors , as included in the ink and paper you mention.
[quote] I tend to agree that translations lose things, but not sure that I'll agree that they are lost forever.
Forever? whats that ?

[scottie12]

Hey Fred -hows it going ?

[quote]'Gruff, daggone it---you screwed up your definitions, once again!

He's a slippery one eh , in an inter-dimensional sort of
way ,but , ifn he hangs around long enuff I think i can wear him down and pry his 'other' eye (the practical one)
open or maybe he'll drag me into that comfy - 'whatever'-
dimension that he's in where anything goes except for things that are too practical in a liberal sort of way! we'll see -probably be a draw.
Im thinking that tying him down definition-wise might actually make his head explode , so I think we should try that with deliberate care !

[alma]

Just finished all the reading i want to do in von daniken's book, "gods from outer space."

It is much too dense for me. The first few chapters give some info about the theory and then he goes into the mathamatics of space travel and lost me completely.

--so i went to the later part of the book where he tells of all his visits to ancient sites to see the remains left by some of the early inhabitants of the earth that suggest that there was, indeed, some visitations to this planet from elsewhere in the cosmos, or whatever.

That was easier to read, but still not too interesting to me at this time.

When i read Velikovksy"s worlds in collision and ages in chaos it was hard to read, too, but when i got past about 50 words that i did not understand,it was rather interesting to read about how he thought a comet came close to the earth, and how the earthmen responded, or reacted to this strange event, and the artifacts they created in honor of this strange event.

--but, to me, UFO and the Bible by Jessup was the easiest to read, and perhaps also, Yerrill and yerril'ls Gods who were men that i first read, but have since forgotten.

It must have inspired me like Velikovsky's words did in the 50s. I had been doing an indepth study of exodus and my sister saw this book advertised and sent the article by velikovsky to me, and i took off on it.

Well, that's my report. Think i'll stick with jessup and his observations from the bible that are so much like i was doing and find easy to understand. love, alma

[alma]

Hey, imagine my suprise to discover this subject most pertinent to me.
Since the original one i wrote a few years back in more detail is long gone, and this is still here amazes and delights me.
Therefore, i get the chance to bring it to the forefront again to give the idea another airing, and see if there is any more feedback.
If you haven't gone to the end of the general board to see some of the old posts, i highly recommend it.
It sure brings back a lot of things i'd forgotten about, and gave me a chance to mneet some of our old friends from the forum that i seldom see anymore. love, alma

[bookwormom]

> Hope you all have a nice holiday weekend. This looks interesting:
>
> I suppose it really started in 1977 when the door bell chimed. There,
> clutching bags and Bibles, stood two ladies from the local group of
> Jehovah's Witnesses. We all know the joyful feeling we get when we
open
> the door to see two silver haired, smiling faces, holding books and
> leaflets. I was no different. On that occasion I decided to argue,
> though it was so long ago I do not remember the details. Only one
detail
> sticks in my mind, something one of them said. 'Why not read it for
> yourself ?'
>
> That seemed to me to be quite a reasonable suggestion, so I did.
>
> I didn't get very far into it before I came across the story of the
> tower of Babel. It caught my interest because it seemed to be out of
> place in the narrative. It is placed smack in the middle of a
genealogy
> and sticks out like a sore thumb, as if some scribe had dropped his
> papers and picked them up in the wrong order.
>
> It was already known to me that the chapter and verse divisions in
the
> Bible are a modern convention, so I allowed myself to view the
context
> of chapters ten and eleven of the book of Genesis as one continuous
> story. In fact it is all genealogy, apart from verses one through
nine
> of chapter eleven, and these relate the Babel story. Again, I noticed
> the story was apparently misplaced in time as well, since, going back
to
> chapter ten, verse ten, we see that Babel was part of Nimrod's
kingdom.
>
> 'The beginning of his kingdom was Babel...' (Ch 10 v 10)
>
> I had to ask myself why had the ancient scribe misplaced the story of
> the construction of Babel. Was it an accident? Perhaps not. Perhaps
it
> was a deliberate ploy to attract attention? Certainly it had that
> effect, it attracted mine.
>
> It seemed to me to be saying 'Please take notice, here is something
> important.' I experienced that feeling, though logic, and the view of
> experts, told me otherwise. The experts all said that Babel was a
> Babylonian ziggurat, though they never give their reasoning. Perhaps
> they think that any rational answer is better than confessing
ignorance.
> There were many Babylonian ziggurats built, long after the time
context
> of the Biblical Babel. Why would a Bible writer include mention of
just
> one such ziggurat, when there were many built ? In the context of the
> Bible, the tower was built before the confusion of tongues and the
> scattering of the people. It follows that it was built before the
time
> of Nimrod, who founded his kingdom on it.
>
> Nimrod was second generation after Noah stepped out of the famous ark
> onto the slopes of mount Ararat. If we accept the context of the
story,
> Nimrod was the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who was one of
> Noah's three sons who took passage on the ark. (Gen. 10, verses 6 & 8
)
> It follows that the tower was built within two generations, and even
if
> we allow for longevity, the construction was started, at most, within
> one century of the famous flood.
>
> In the context of the narrative, it was long before the rise of
Babylon.
> The experts place Babel in Babylon, despite the contextual
anachronism,
> because of the similarity in phonetics of the two words. But the word
> 'Babel' has no linguistic or etymological connection to the word
> 'Babylon'.
>
> The Witnesses seemed to think it was a pagan temple.
>
> As it turned out, it seems that both were wrong.
>
>
>
> Another problem area was found in chapter eleven, verse two, where
the
> authorized version says :-
>
> "...as they journeyed From the East."
>
> The sequence of the narrative is quite easy to follow, there should
be
> no cause for great dispute.
>
> When Noah and his family stepped from the ark, they were the only
living
> souls on Earth.
>
> They stayed in the area of Ararat for a while, and then set out in a
> westerly direction, to explore their new world.
>
> Mount Ararat is in Turkey, so traveling from the east would mean they
> were moving towards the west. That is to say they would be moving
> towards Europe, not towards Babylon, which was in the other
direction.
> (actually it wasn't, Babylon did not exist as a nation at that time.
All
> the Earth was of one speech and the people one, according to the
text)
>
> I concluded that Babel was not a Babylonian ziggurat, and must
therefore
> be something else.
>
>
>
> By this time I was well and truly hooked.
> It was more than enough to cause me to read with closer interest.
Soon
> other anomalies presented themselves, and I found myself drawn into a
> fascinating Biblical world.
> My initial curiosity soon led to a full investigation. I followed
clues
> which led me to discover the maths reported in detail on the other
> pages.
> ("An Astronomical Enigma", <http://members.aol.com/astroequation>
> and/or "Stonehenge Equation". <http://members.aol.com/stoneequation>
)
> I kept an open mind, or tried to, and was willing to accept the Bible
on
> its own terms.
>
> My approach was to say, 'O.K. The Bible is myth, but let us accept
it,
> let's accept the context, and see where it leads.'
> The idea was, of course, that if the Bible was myth then accepting it
> would produce no valid result. If I were to base logic and reasoning
on
> Biblical clues, and if those clues were not real, then quite
obviously,
> I would not expect real results. The fact that I did obtain real
results
> came as something of a shock, but more of that later.
>
> The first thing I did was to draw up a list of all the things I could
> that concerned Babel, along with a fresh translation of the text. The
> translation I made with the aid of a concordance, and common sense, I
am
> no expert on Hebrew.
>
> I knew that Hebrew words had many nuances of meaning, just like
English
> words, and the exact meaning chosen by the King James translators, or
> any others for that matter, would depend on the expectations and
> religious views of the translators.
>
> For example, it is well known that there is no Hebrew word that can
be
> directly translated as 'God'. The Hebrew uses the word 'Elohim' which
is
> plural and literally means 'strong ones' or 'mighty ones'. Chapter
one
> verse one of Genesis actually says that the heavens were created by
> 'Elohim'.
>
>
>
> Perhaps, before we go further, I should present the reader with my
> alternative translation to the Babel story.
>
> It is much the same as the King James version, I have merely allowed
> myself to explore some of the nuances of meaning in both Hebrew and
> English.
>
> It should not trouble the reader that I am not an expert on Hebrew,
if
> my translation is wrong, then it does not matter.
>
> A wrong translation will lead nowhere. Only a correct translation
will
> yield positive results. The reader might like to assess the accuracy
of
> the translation later, when the results of the investigation are
> considered.
>
> The chapter and verse references are just that, for ease of
reference,
> they mean nothing of themselves and should be ignored when reading
the
> text.
> The translation that follows should not be seen as authoritative, for
> the most part it is derived from the alternative meanings that can be
> found in all languages. The particular sense of meaning that emerges
is
> just one of a range that are possible from the semantics of the
passage.
> If critical experts disagree with the translation, then I can do no
more
> than point to the reasoning already expressed. If it is wrong, it
will
> lead nowhere.
>
>
>
> Genesis Chapter Eleven
>
> 1) And the whole Earth was of one language. United.
>
> 2) And it came to pass, as they journeyed westward, that they found a
> plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
>
> 3) And they said one to another, go to, let us make brick, and burn
them
> thoroughly. And they had brick and stone and pitch for mortar.
>
> 4) And they said , Go to, let us build us a town and a place of
pillars
> whose top elevation, or plan, may connect with the heavens: and let
it
> be for a memorial to our name, lest we be scattered across the earth
and
> forgotten.
>
> 5) And the Mighty Ones came down, to see the town, and the place of
> pillars, which the children of men were building.
>
> 6) And the Mighty Ones said, Look, the people are one, and they have
all
> one language: and this they begin to do:
>
> Now nothing will stand in their way, they can do anything they can
> imagine.
>
> 7) Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that
they
> may not understand each other.
>
> 8) So the Mighty Ones scattered them across the Earth, and they
stopped
> building the town.
>
> 9) Therefore is the name of it called The Gate of Strength, or the
Gate
> of God, because the Mighty Ones did there confound the language of
all
> the earth and from thence did the Mighty Ones scatter them abroad
upon
> the face of all the earth.
>
>
>
> It is worthwhile drawing attention to verse two, which claims that
they
> 'journeyed'. Now it matters not, for the moment, which direction they
> were moving in. The point I would wish to bring out is that this was
a
> smallish group of people, on the move as one united body. It was not
a
> global population of many billions, as might be inferred from words
like
> 'The whole Earth'. A truly global population would not be considered
as
> being capable of journeying as a united body.
>
> The context refers to a smallish group of people who, because of
their
> unique circumstances, were the only people in the world, and could
> therefore be described accurately as 'The whole Earth'.
>
> pppp
>
> After the confusion of tongues and the scattering, the narrative
jumps
> back to chapter ten verse ten, where it is reported that one section
of
> the fragmented society under the leadership of Nimrod, established a
> kingdom centered on Babel, while the others were scattered abroad.
>
> Chapter ten, verse five, describes the process in more detail.
>
> "By these were the isles of the gentiles divided in their lands,
every
> one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."
>
> pppp
>
> I would like to remind the reader that I am making no claim for the
> literal truth of these verses, nor am I trying to prove a point. My
> purpose is to relate the sequence of events that led to the discovery
of
> the mathematics on web site An Astronomical Enigma
> <http://members.aol.com/astroequation>
>
> Once discovered, the math is independent of the path that led to its
> discovery.
>
> I could have obtained the mathematics by following a false trail, it
> matters not. The math is what matters.
>
> I started with the information reported above, be it true or false, I
> considered that it had meaning. Someone took the trouble to preserve
it
> for thousands of years, so the least I could do was take it
seriously.
>
> Let us return to the narrative, and use it firstly to clear up a few
> misconceptions promoted by 'experts'.
>
> pppp
>
> We may note again the comment that the people were united under one
> leader, presumed to be Noah, and that they travelled westward away
from
> Ararat. This would bring them into Europe, and not Mesopotamia.
>
> The 'land of Shinar' is often said to be located in Babylon by those
> same experts, who presume that because Babel was a ziggurat
(according
> to them) and because Babel was built in 'Shinar', then, using false
> logic, it follows that Shinar must be a region or sub district of
> Babylon. That ties it all down neatly, but is not necessarily
correct.
>

[bookwormom]

>
> If the people moved to the west of Ararat, then there can be no
> connection whatever with a country that did not even exist at that
time.
>
>
> So, the first misconception to correct is the notion that Babel or
> Shinar was in Mesopotamia.
>
> Since we conclude it was not Babylonian, we can further conclude that
it
> was not a Ziggurat, since they came later, and were only built by
> Babylonians, as far as we can tell.
>
> The people who built Babel, were not Babylonians. They were the only
> people on Earth, they were united, with a common language, and they
> moved westward into Europe.
>
> There is another commonly held misconception that is somewhat easier
to
> clear up. Babel is often shown in rather lurid pictures as a toppling
> tower, in the process of being destroyed by the wrathful hand of God.
>
> In the narrative, the structure of Babel was not destroyed.
>
> The Mighty Ones did not destroy it, nor is there any indication that
> they wished to do so.
>
> The scripture simply reports that building work was stopped on the
> 'city' or town. The people subsequently scattered.
>
> No mention is made, not anywhere in the Bible, of a destruction of
> Babel. It was simply taken over by Nimrod after the scattering.
>
>
>
> To summarize the misconceptions....
>
> A) Babel was not in Babylon.
>
> B) Shinar was not in Babylon.
>
> C) Babel was not a ziggurat.
>
> D) Babel was not destroyed.
>
> E) There is no indication that Babel was a temple.
>
> F) The population was small.
>
> G) Babel was a memorial of some kind.
>
>
>
> Let us turn our attention to item 'C'.
>
> It is valid to say that Babel was not a ziggurat, but it could have
been
> some other kind of tower. Why have I changed the word 'Tower' into
> 'Place of Pillars'?
>
> I did this for several reasons, not least amongst these reasons was
the
> fact that the language allows for the use of the word 'pillars'. A
> pillar is a small tower, a tower is a large pillar.
>
> The literal translation is "upright things".
>
> Another reason is related to the statement that the top "may reach
unto
> heaven."
>
> The King James translators were in the habit of inserting words to
make
> better sense of a dubious translation, these they dutifully rendered
in
> italics. The words in the text, reading, 'may reach' were not in the
> original, and can be omitted.
>
> This leaves us with "Whose top unto heaven" as the King James English
> version of the Hebrew.
>
> The language seems to indicate that the top connected with the
heavens,
> rather than reached towards the heavens.
>
> The text appeared to me to read 'connected' but this could not be
> literal, on the understanding that the people who built it were not
> stupid, nor were the people who wrote the text. They must have had
> experience of mountains, they had recently departed from mount
Ararat.
>
> The people who built Babel would have known that the mountains do not
> literally reach the heavens, as the scribe who wrote the story would
> also have known. Knowing that the high mountains did not reach
heaven,
> would they be likely to think they could build a tower, so much
higher
> than the mountains ?
>
> The structure was built on a plain. Had they wished it to reach the
> heavens, surely it would have been better to build the foundations on
a
> mountain top ? Starting at the top of a mountain would mean they were
at
> least half way there, it would reduce the amount of work
considerably.
>
> If the monument top did not reach the heavens literally, and if the
> words do not really indicate 'towards', then we must seek some other
> meaning.
>
> I inserted the words 'connect', since it covers several
possibilities,
> including the literal.
>
> It is often claimed that the structure was to serve as a pagan
temple, a
> claim that may have been deduced from the apparent displeasure shown
by
> 'God', however, the context indicates it was built under the auspices
of
> Noah, and he is elsewhere described as righteous, he would not be
> expected to build a pagan temple. The structure is nowhere described
as
> a temple, pagan or otherwise.
>
> In fact the text describes it as a 'memorial'. (Verse 4).
>
> It is expressly stated that the structure was to be some kind of
> memorial, a monument to the builders who anticipated being forgotten
by
> posterity.
>
> It seemed to me that these people wanted to build something special,
or
> to record some special knowledge, as a memorial to their name. They
> wanted to build something that future generations would look upon,
> marvel at, and be impressed by. It was to be something grand, to
> perpetuate the name and the memory of the builders.
>
> It was this thought, that the structure was a memorial, built to
last,
> that hinted at the possibility of stored knowledge. If the people who
> built it were survivors of a global disaster, as described by the
text,
> then they might well wish to preserve some record of what happened.
>
> Such knowledge, if it existed, could be preserved in architecture,
> designed into this 'memorial'.
>
> The thought led me to examine the text even more closely.
>
> The understanding of 'Top reaching unto the heavens' was imposed by
the
> translators, they could only conceive of such a literal meaning,
because
> they viewed the structure, and the scripture, as being primitive.
>
> Having decided that 'Top reaching the heavens' was to be understood
in a
> primitive literal sense, that it meant 'High', the early translators
> left themselves no option but to use the word 'Tower'. No doubt their
> translation made sense to them, since they were always ready to
equate
> 'old' with 'ignorant'.
>
> ppppp
>
> The original language, and the English, allow for my version.
>
> 'A place of pillars whose top elevation (plan) connects with the
> heavens' is a legitimate translation.
>
>
> There is another reason for changing the meaning of 'tower' to
pillars,
> but this is a little more complex.
> It may be recalled that in verse four of Chapter eleven of Genesis,
the
> people who built Babel were in effect suggesting the building of a
> memorial.
>
> In several times and places, later in scripture, many of the early
> Israelites built memorials of significant events, but they did so by
> erecting stone pillars.
> The erection of stone pillars as memorials seems to be a cultural
trait,
> with particular regard to the characters in the Bible.
>
> In Genesis Ch 28, vs 18 and 22 there is a record of Jacob erecting a
> stone as a memorial, and he even calls the place by a similar name to
> Babel. In verse seventeen he calls the place 'the gate of heaven'.
> However, this is not Babel, it is a different time and story
entirely,
> only the events are similar.
>
> Moses, one of the most famous characters, came much later in time
than
> Babel, and we see him erecting a kind of monument made of twelve
> 'pillars' as part of a religious memorial.
> (Exodus Chp 24 verse 4)
>
> See Joshua Chapter 4 V 9, and v 20 where another such incident is
> described. The story of Joshua is part of Israel's history, and also
> comes much later in time than Babel, yet here we see the erection of
> twelve stones, one for each of the tribes, to commemorate the
crossing
> into the promised land.
> The size of the stones is not mentioned, but the scribe notes they
> 'remain to this day' (Josh Ch 4 v 9), the impression given that a
long
> period of time had elapsed, that the stones were still there.
> We can conclude that the stones were large ones, or they would not
have
> 'remained' for long.
>
> There are other such incidences described elsewhere.
>
> ppppp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The erection of pillars appears to be a cultural trait, or tradition,
of
> the early Biblical patriarchs, and if this is so, then we may expect
> that they would have acquired such a tradition from their forebears.
>
> The forebears of Abraham were the builders of Babel.
>
> (See genealogy in Genesis 11, from Babel through to Abram, who was
later
> renamed as Abraham, who was the forefather of those mentioned above,
who
> erected pillars as memorials.)
>
> The genealogy of scripture provides a continuity between the builders
of
> Babel and the later 'erectors of pillars'. The tradition of erecting
> pillars is seen as originating with Babel.
>
> >From this observation, we may deduce that the builders of Babel
started
> that cultural trait, and that the monument at Babel would have been
> similarly built, that is to say, it would have been a memorial made
of
> vertical stone pillars.
>
> ppppp
>
> It is also noted that the erection of vertical stone pillars is a
> cultural trait of the Neolithic peoples of western Europe.
>
>
>
> It is a known fact that many of these Neolithic structures were
aligned
> with the heavens, and details of the alignments can be found in many
> books on Neolithic archaeology.
>
> We may also observe that, in the context of the Biblical narrative of
> Babel, the structure was the first to be built after the flood.
>
> ppppp
>
> We need not concern ourselves here with the vexed question of the
> reality of Noah's flood, that is for later, or for others to discuss.
> Here we need only note that in the context of the scriptural story of
> Babel, the entire planet had been recently wiped clean of any trace
of
> humanity. Babel, and the enigmatic 'place of pillars' would be seen
as
> the first, and at the time the only, man made structure visible on
the
> planet.

[bookwormom]

> If it still existed today, it would be very, very old. It would be
older
> than any other structure, older than the pyramids, older than the
Bible,
> older than anything made by man except for the remains of Noah's Ark.
>
> It follows from this that the supposed 'City' or town, which was made
of
> mud brick, would have turned to dust long ago. No trace of the city
> would remain.
>
> Only the pillars stood a chance of remaining, and then only if they
> consisted of large and durable stones.
>
> The thought then occurred to me that it was built to last. The
scripture
> reports its supposed purpose, as a memorial, to make a name for the
> builders, lest they be forgotten.
>
> They seemed to have had some prescient foreknowledge of their fate,
> 'Lest we be scattered', as indeed they were.
>
> If it was built to last, and if it were built of durable stone, then
it
> seemed to me to be at least possible that it might still exist, or
some
> trace of it might still remain.
>
> It might even be known to modern archaeology, but if so, it would be
> under a different name. The thought entered my head that I might be
able
> to find it.
>
> ppppp
>
> Babel was built by a group of people shortly after a global
catastrophe
> that had wiped the Earth clean. No matter what their previous
> technological capabilities, these survivors of the catastrophe would
> have been reduced to a primitive, Neolithic condition. They may have
> retained knowledge, but they would have lost any prior industrial
> infrastructure.
>
> We might expect that Babel would have been constructed using
primitive
> tools and methods. Were it to exist today, it would possibly show
signs
> of having been so constructed.
>
> In other words, it would look primitive, it would look Neolithic.
>
> ppppp
>
>
>
> I decided to review everything I had deduced about the structure, and
> list all those properties that might help to identify it. I had very
> little to work with, only the Bible, which was no more than
mythology,
> according to all the experts.
>
> I felt sure that the structure would be monumental, in keeping with
its
> declared function as a memorial.
>
> It would be something that would attract attention, something
splendid,
> at least when it was new. It was intended to 'make a name' for the
> builders. A mere pile of rubble would not do that.
>
> I considered that it might be Neolithic, and it was almost certain
that
> if it did exist to this day, it would be regarded as Neolithic by
modern
> science.
>
> pppp
>
> I also had to consider the attitude of the Mighty Ones, as reported
in
> the text. They seemed to think the structure was very significant,
> dangerous even. It was something more than mere idolatry. Men are
always
> building places of worship for idols, and the world is full of pagan
> temples. God never seems to bother much with such places.
>
> There was something about Babel that was more significant than a
pagan
> temple, and it seemed to me, again, in context with the narrative,
that
> it may have been a repository for antediluvian knowledge, and that
> thought served to explain the enigmatic statement that the 'top'
> connected with the heavens. It could connect in a mathematical or
> symbolic sense, but not in a physical sense.
>
> After all, when Noah embarked on the ark, he took with him all that
he
> was told to take. He took his family, his wife, his sons and their
> wives. He took all the animals, two by two, and we can only assume he
> took along enough in the way of provisions, food, water, and fodder,
to
> last for the duration.
>
> He would have packed many things that were not mentioned in
scripture,
> if it were a real story.
>
> He would have taken all sorts of trivial things, like a means to make
> fire to cook his dinner, just as an example.
>
> There is something else he would have taken, could not avoid taking.
He
> and his family, all eight people on the boat, would by necessity have
> taken all their knowledge acquired over a long lifetime. Noah was six
> hundred years old when the flood came upon the earth, (Or so it is
> claimed by scripture, see Gen Ch 7 v 6), and it is possible to learn
a
> lot of scientific knowledge in six hundred years.
>
>
>
> Certainly, under the imposed condition that the context is true, Noah
> would have taken antediluvian science onto the ark, and would still
have
> it when he built Babel after the flood. (Noah lived for three hundred
> and fifty years after the flood, see Gen Ch 9 v 28)
>
> This observation was supported by my attempt at translation, that it
had
> a ground plan layout that somehow connected with, or mapped, some
part
> of the 'Heavens'.
>
> A monument that contained advanced knowledge would certainly be an
> anachronism, and could be seen as unwelcome by some putative 'God',
but
> I could not quite understand how it would lead on to the builders
being
> able to do whatever they imagined.
>
> Perhaps the translation should read "If they can do this, they can do
> anything, we'd better intervene" or words to that effect. I mean that
> the confusion of languages was not imposed to stop them building what
> must have been almost completed, but to stop them from doing even
worse
> things.
>
> In short, they were reduced to confusion, not as a punishment for
what
> they had done, but to prevent them from doing whatever it was they
> "imagined" to do afterwards.
>
> If the Mighty Ones had disapproved of the actual structure, they
could
> surely have destroyed it. Fortunately they didn't.
>
> I considered that there was a good chance that some trace of it might
> still exist, and decided to give some thought to a possible location.
I
> reasoned that if I found it, I could identify it in a positive manner
by
> extracting new, advanced knowledge from it. One would not expect to
> extract new knowledge about the heavens from a primitive structure.
>
> If I could learn something new, not previously known to science, then
I
> would have proven the case and identified Babel. The problem was I
had
> no idea how to go about it, not at that time, but I persevered
anyway.
>
> There were some indicators in scripture that point to a general
> location, many I have already mentioned.
>
> It was built on a plain, somewhere in Europe, possibly, or one might
> say, probably, in the area of Neolithic culture, which was western
and
> northwestern Europe.
>
> Europe is a large place, and there are many areas of land that could
be
> called 'plains'. There are many Neolithic structures, all of large
> upright stones, all could be described as 'Places of pillars'. A very
> great number of them have some form of primitive alignment to the
> heavens.
>
> I felt sure I was on the right track, but I needed something much
more
> precise if I was ever to obtain a positive identification.
>
> I returned to the text of the narrative, looking for some clue that
> would narrow down the search area.
>
>
>
> My attention focussed on an enigmatic statement in verse five of
Genesis
> chapter ten.
>
> 'By these were the isles of the gentiles divided...'
>
> This struck me as odd. The term 'gentile' literally means a Greek,
and
> there were no Greeks in the time of Babel.
>
> It also means 'Non-Jew', but there were no Jews in the days of Babel,
> and hence no need for a word meaning 'Non-Jew'.
>
> It is true that the text was written long after the events it claimed
to
> describe, but surely the scribe would have been familiar with Jewish
> history ? He must surely have known he was using an anachronism ?
>
> I saw here a clue, a superfluous and anachronistic reference to
islands
> of Greeks, or non-Jews. The only other possibility was perhaps the
> scribe was referring to islands that would become Non-Jewish in the
time
> period during which the scribe was writing.
>
> Even this alternative was enigmatic. There are not, and there never
> were, any islands that could be called 'Jewish'. So again there was
no
> need for reference to islands of gentiles.
>
> ALL islands are 'of the Gentiles' and always have been.
>
> A look at a map of Europe and the middle East will quickly reveal
that
> there are not many islands to choose from.
>
> There are the Mediterranean islands and there are the British Isles.
>
> That is about all there are in the area covered by the text of
> scripture. It seems there is limited choice of islands.
>
> If the term 'Gentile' meant 'Greek', then the verse seems rather
> meaningless, the Greek Islands are all very small, and boast little
in
> the way of megalithic structures.
>
> We could consider the other Mediterranean islands, but apart from
Malta,
> there are not many candidates for Neolithic monuments.
>
> Malta is possible, but the scripture uses the plural, 'Isles', so we
are
> looking for a group.
>
> The British Isles are the only group of islands that fit the
> requirements. They are non-Jewish, they are a group, and can be
> described in the plural, and they are very rich in Neolithic
structures.
> They also lie more-or-less to the west/northwest of Ararat.
>
> If the verse in Genesis means anything at all, it appears to be
pointing
> the finger at the British Isles. There are not many others. There are
> none in the Red sea, none to speak of in the Persian gulf, and
certainly
> none in the deserts of Babylon, modern Iraq.
>
> Where else could one look for 'Isles of the Gentiles' ?
>
> I decided that the monuments of Britain would be the first to be
> examined in detail. There are a great many, but most are simple
circles,
> only a few have enough complexity to hide knowledge.
>
> Stonehenge was a prime candidate.
>
>
>
> I spent some time looking at other places, such as the stone arrays
in
> Brittany, France, but there seemed to be no way of connecting them to
> the heavens, apart from some rather dubious alignments. All my
> indicators seemed to point to the British Isles, and the most obvious
> Neolithic Structure in those islands is Stonehenge.
>
> It became necessary for me to study the monument, since to start with
I
> knew very little about it. I visited libraries, and book shops,
> collecting as much information as I could.
>
> I was surprised to find that the 'experts' seem to know very little
> about it. It was a mystery.
>
> Of course, there were guesses, and many theories, but by and large
the
> monument seemed to have the experts stumped.
>
>

[bookwormom]

There are several aspects of Stonehenge which should be pointed out
in
> connection with Babel.
>
> Stonehenge is in roughly the right area to accord with the Biblical
> story, people could have walked here from Ararat in less than ten
years,
> crossing the channel in boats.
>
> It isn't as if Stonehenge were in Australia, or on Easter Island, its
> location would be accessible to the people from Ararat, so it cannot
be
> ruled out on grounds of distance or inaccessibility.
>
> Stonehenge is built on a plain, (Salisbury plain) and the scripture
> describes Babel as being on a plain.
>
> (Gen 11 v 2, 'they found a plain and dwelt there')
>
> According to archaeologists, Stonehenge was never finished, just like
> Babel.
>
> (Gen 11 v 8 'They left off the building..')
>
> Nobody knows exactly how old Stonehenge is, but it could easily be
one
> of the oldest structure on Earth.
>
> Stonehenge is a grand structure, and would make a fitting memorial
for
> the builders. It was certainly built to last.
>
> It could be described as 'A place of pillars' but not as a 'tower'.
It
> is located in 'Isles of the Gentiles'
>
> Perhaps the most telling of all is the archaeological fact, attested
to
> in many books, that Stonehenge has no known precedent.
>
> It appears out of the mist of history as a unique structure.
>
> There is no verified or proven case for its origin.
>
> There it stands, on Salisbury plain, where it has stood for thousands
of
> years, and, though many books have been written about it, and many
> theories and guesses applied, it still remains a complete mystery to
the
> experts.
>
>
>
> SUMMARY of similarities between Babel and Stonehenge.
>
> 1] Both very old.
>
> 2] Both constructed with primitive tools.
>
> 3] Both constructed with primitive methods.
>
> 4] Both grand monuments.
>
> 5] Both located to West of Ararat.
>
> 6] Both built on a plain.
>
> 7] Both built to last.
>
> 8] Both were unfinished.
>
> 9] Both consist of pillars. (Babel probably)
>
> 10] Both are unique.
>
> 11] Both have no precedent.
>
> There is another point to add to the above list, both connect with
the
> heavens.
>
> I could not include this point at this stage in my investigation, the
> full extent of the connection had not emerged. However, it is a known
> fact that Stonehenge does connect to the heavens in a simple way.
>
> The alignment with the summer solstice is well known, as is the use
of
> the Aubrey circle as an eclipse predictor.
>
> 12] Both connect to the heavens.
>
>
>
> On consideration of all these points, not forgetting references to
the
> Isles of the Gentiles, I concluded that if Babel were to be anywhere,
> then Stonehenge had to be top of the list of possible candidates.
Twelve
> points of similarity had to mean something.
>
> The only way to prove it would be to show that Stonehenge had a
ground
> plan that 'connected with the heavens' and revealed new, verifiable,
> information about the heavens.
>
> This I was able to do....See Stonehenge Equation
> <http://members.aol.com/stoneequation>
>
> The information obtained is new, and has been validated many times by
> professionals. It has been examined by most of the elite scientific
> institutions in the world, and at over 950 universities.
> Nobody has yet reported any significant computational error. The
> mathematics/astronomy is presented in formal manner on 'Astronomical
> Enigma' <http://members.aol.com/astroequation>
>
> The astronomical information is 'stand alone', that is to say, it is
> unaffected by its origin in an ancient monument. It would remain
valid,
> even if Stonehenge ceased to exist. The material is important in its
own
> right, since it proves beyond doubt that the 'Nebular Hypothesis' is
not
> completely correct.
>
> Although I personally consider the case proven, there has been no
> comment from any of the experts who have examined it, and in the
years
> that have passed since the discovery, I have not been able to
publish.
> Stonehenge is indeed 'A place of pillars whose top elevation (ground
> plan) connects with the heavens.'
>
> In all respects, Stonehenge fits the description of the 'Tower' of
> Babel.
>
>
>
>

[bookwormom]

of course the Bible does say that they used brick, so that shoots stone henge.

[Holly]

Wow! I have a copy of "Chariots of the Gods"! I picked it up second hand last year. I didnt know it was well known. I am interested in all religious and spiritual writings and theories, and find a sceptical enjoyment in books like this. The pictures in the middle of "Chariots of the Gods" are amazing! Ancient pictures depicting a good likeness of an astronaut in a rocket! Ancient electric batteries! Has anyone read Bob Frissel? A bit of a loon, but really good fun and thought provoking, which is the main thing. I like the pyramid pics of subs, helicopters, bombs etc. Id love to go and see it for myself.

I will be checking out the writers and sites that have been mentioned here, and trying again to read bookworms post :o

Peace. :)

[Bufordt]

Read a couple of his books when I was a teenager.

If you want answers to your questions. Check out the book "The 12th Planet"

http://www.sitchin.com/

Answered all mine. I now know the truth.

Bufordt

[alma]

thought this was appropriate for those interested in UFOs and the tible. lots of good info. love, alma

[alma]

On Larry King Live tonight, there was an interesting discussion about ufos, but no where near as interesting as the subject is handled here on this thread. love, alma.

[rivahmom]

Alma,
I also enjoy reading Von Daniken and the works of Stichin. One of the books they referenced was Forbidden Archeology and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in ET life.

[alma]

Same subject in greater detail on history channel tonight. Might be on again later tonight, i hope.
I think UFO and the bible by Maurice Jessup is by far the easiest for me to read, other than what i have written over the years since i first heard about all this stuff in the 1950s and what i'v posted over the years here on the forum. These have long gone off the board i think. love, alma

[alma]

Here ya are. The posts about estra terrestials that were on a lettle while ago. I guess the president could refer to this post, too, as well as some of the youtube stuff. love, alma

[alma]

This subject was on tv last night, but not at all as simple as maurice jessups ufo and the bible.
The tv rendition was not anything that i would have given much more thought too, but jessup is simple and very easy to understand re these references in the bible, as opposed to the extravaganza last night.
love, alma

[idris]

If these be gods, whence came they? To be confused as such is one thing: but God made only creation, not other creatures meant to be sort-of gods. Some folk worship money, some worship politics, some worship their own asinine opinion. No wonder there is so much confusion over this very simple fact: God is the only god, the rest are but figments of some person or persons' imagination.

[alma]

since ufo and bible stuff was on tv last night, i thought some of you who have never before given it a thought might get something out of one of our former discussions. i'll check back for a few more when i can get back to it in the am. must go back to sleep again like most of you probably already have from all the distractions when i brught it up before. love, alma

[jim]

If these be gods, whence came they? To be confused as such is one thing: but God made only creation, not other creatures meant to be sort-of gods. Some folk worship money, some worship politics, some worship their own asinine opinion. No wonder there is so much confusion over this very simple fact: God is the only god, the rest are but figments of some person or persons' imagination.

You are correct. These shows tend to be confusing to most folks, and I suppose that is the original intent.

jim