Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
My guest blog post is up!
A week or so ago I mentioned that I had done a guest blog post for the author Renee Pawlish. Today when I checked my e-mail I found that she had published my guest post over at her blog. So head on over there and check it out!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Unexpected twists and werewolves
Life it seems is constantly throwing unexpected twists at me recently. Sort of annoying because they were not totally unexpected, but I couldn't really do much about them. First off I was demoted at work, while kind of negative thing in the career world, it's sort of a relief because I'm not as stressed now, plus my pay won't be cut to bad. Most annoying however is that my power supply on my desktop decided to kick the bucket, so I'm writing this from my wife's laptop which I have issues with (likes to trick me with it's keyboard). Worst part is that do to a freak accident with gamma radiation, I turn into frothing werewolf when it pisses me off...
Ok...so I'm not really some Incredible Hulk werewolf, but between seeing Twilight New Moon with my wife recently and also Monsterquest's most recent episode (about werewolves as well), I've formulated an idea about paranormal creatures. It's sort of a play on the idea of thoughtforms (physical manifestations of thoughts), or Tulpas (for those more familiar with that term).
This isn't really an original idea, but the theory that Fortean objects or phenomenon, be it animals or UFOs are physical manifestations of thought is actually quite common (heck some believe the world/universe is basically a gigantic thoughtform). However I found myself wondering how many paranormal creatures exist because of a community belief in them, not just from an individual's. Basically the communities themselves believe these to be real, so they become real.
Sadly this post is almost a repeat of one I wrote around year or more ago about gods existing because of belief. Actually it somewhat makes sense. Both the Bible and Koran make it a point to try and make one's beliefs in other gods (besides Allah/Jehovah) falter or be flat out eliminated. It's almost as if the writers of those ancient texts knew that the existence of these gods depended on the amount of belief in them, sort of like in Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods in a way.
Anyways expect more on this idea the near future. Also if things fall into place expect to hear about a crazy plan of mine soon as well...something involving a road trip and of course...strangeness...
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Disturbing Bible Passage: Ancient Astronaut?
In 1 Kings, King Solomon has the temple in Jerusalem built for Jehovah and they proceed to place the Ark of the Covenant into it's permanent (at the time at least) resting place. When the priests proceed to lay it down in the "Holy of Holies" and leave the area when the following happens:
For some reason I'm almost disturbed by this section. First off, it's not as "glorious" as one would picture God. There is no brilliant white lights and no chorus of angels, just a dark "gloom" as they call it in some translations. It just doesn't have that Godlike feel to it and almost seems more sinister. You could argue I guess that it's to conceal God's image from people so they won't die, but then again, I've heard just being in the Ark's presence can kill. In fact they would tie ropes onto priests going into the "Holy of Holies" so if they did die they could be pulled out.
Surprisingly, as far as I know, this section has yet to have been brought up by ancient astronaut theorists. The dark cloud almost makes me think of an artificial atmosphere, designed for an alien entity. I mean who say aliens breath our air right? Not to mention if their atmosphere is poisonous to humans, it would explain why priests would die when in the presence of the Ark. Either way, it kind of gives me the willies...unless of course God was going through a moody goth phase...
"10 When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the LORD. 11 And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled his temple. 12 Then Solomon said, "The LORD has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; 13 I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever." - 1 Kings 8:10-13 NIV
For some reason I'm almost disturbed by this section. First off, it's not as "glorious" as one would picture God. There is no brilliant white lights and no chorus of angels, just a dark "gloom" as they call it in some translations. It just doesn't have that Godlike feel to it and almost seems more sinister. You could argue I guess that it's to conceal God's image from people so they won't die, but then again, I've heard just being in the Ark's presence can kill. In fact they would tie ropes onto priests going into the "Holy of Holies" so if they did die they could be pulled out.
Surprisingly, as far as I know, this section has yet to have been brought up by ancient astronaut theorists. The dark cloud almost makes me think of an artificial atmosphere, designed for an alien entity. I mean who say aliens breath our air right? Not to mention if their atmosphere is poisonous to humans, it would explain why priests would die when in the presence of the Ark. Either way, it kind of gives me the willies...unless of course God was going through a moody goth phase...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Gilgamesh Flood Story Part 2: Similarities
There are many obvious similarities between the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the story of Noah's flood. This of course brings up the question of whether one was inspired by the other, particularly the story of Noah being inspired by Gilgamesh, which is the older flood account.
So to start, let's look at some of the similarities:
1. God (Genesis) and the Anunnaki (Gilgamesh and related stories, i.e: Atra-hasis) decide man must be wiped out by a flood.
2. An individual (Noah and Utnapishtim) deemed worthy to live by God or one of the Anunnaki is given warning of the eminent deluge and ordered to build a boat to save their family and chosen animals.
3. Both Noah and Utnapishtim send out birds to see if the flooding is going away.
4. Each makes sacrifices to God or gods once settled on dry land.
Those are just the most similar connections, however here is a link that gives a bit more in depth similarity studies side by side.
As I said earlier, the question is, was one inspired by the other, and if so what does that mean. Clearly there are many who take the Bible literally and feel that the story of Gilgamesh just lends more truth to the story of Noah's Flood. And while it does indeed do that, it is really a double edged sword. The fact that the Gilgamesh account was recorded before the book of Genesis was written tends to lead many to the assumption that perhaps the story of Noah was inspired by that of Utnapishtim. Unfortunately there is no proof either way, excepting a small bit of evidence that might prove the existence of a couple kings mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic which wouldn't do much to support the Noah believers.
Also if Noah's story was inspired by the tale of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh, who is to say that perhaps that story wasn't inspired by an earlier tale as well? Most of our knowledge of the early civilizations of Mesopotamia is fragmented at best and much more is probably waiting to be found there. Who knows what the future holds.
Sources and further reading:
The flood story from the epic
Gilgamesh Flood Myth - Wikipedia
Is the Biblical Account of the Flood Modified from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
So to start, let's look at some of the similarities:
1. God (Genesis) and the Anunnaki (Gilgamesh and related stories, i.e: Atra-hasis) decide man must be wiped out by a flood.
2. An individual (Noah and Utnapishtim) deemed worthy to live by God or one of the Anunnaki is given warning of the eminent deluge and ordered to build a boat to save their family and chosen animals.
3. Both Noah and Utnapishtim send out birds to see if the flooding is going away.
4. Each makes sacrifices to God or gods once settled on dry land.
Those are just the most similar connections, however here is a link that gives a bit more in depth similarity studies side by side.
As I said earlier, the question is, was one inspired by the other, and if so what does that mean. Clearly there are many who take the Bible literally and feel that the story of Gilgamesh just lends more truth to the story of Noah's Flood. And while it does indeed do that, it is really a double edged sword. The fact that the Gilgamesh account was recorded before the book of Genesis was written tends to lead many to the assumption that perhaps the story of Noah was inspired by that of Utnapishtim. Unfortunately there is no proof either way, excepting a small bit of evidence that might prove the existence of a couple kings mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic which wouldn't do much to support the Noah believers.
Also if Noah's story was inspired by the tale of Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh, who is to say that perhaps that story wasn't inspired by an earlier tale as well? Most of our knowledge of the early civilizations of Mesopotamia is fragmented at best and much more is probably waiting to be found there. Who knows what the future holds.
Sources and further reading:
The flood story from the epic
Gilgamesh Flood Myth - Wikipedia
Is the Biblical Account of the Flood Modified from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Gilgamesh Flood Story Part 1: Intro
I've been trying to figure out how to introduce this one because it's not quite the same as paraphrasing something from the Bible. The other problem is the fact it really is so similar to the story of Noah's flood that I swear at times I was reading the same thing with different names. So the best to start I think is to give you all a link to the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh: The Great Flood: Gilgamesh (I really suggest reading it because you'll probably be a tad lost later if you don't)
One thing I want to note is that the flood story from this epic is not about Gilgamesh himself, rather it is told to Gilgamesh by the flood survivor named Utnapishtim (I've actually seen TV documentaries get that bit wrong), who is the story's version of Noah. Utnapishtim even builds an equivalent to the Ark which he takes animals on as well (it's not as apparent while reading it, but that is the case), although it is a giant cube apparently with all sides being the same.
Besides the name there are a couple other key differences to this story. For instance there are multiple gods, in particular the Anunnaki whom you should all know from my adventures into the works of Zecharia Sitchin. In fact it is the Anunnaki named Enlil who apparently rashly decides to destroy humanity with a large flood because they have angered him and many of the other Anunnaki.
The other primary difference is that the flooding process itself lasts only 7 days and 6 nights as opposed to the 40 days of Noah's flood. There is also a really cool description process here telling about gods drawing back gates and releasing water, burning the human settlement, and much more. It's almost like reading about a Viking or pirate raid, only the Vikings and pirates are replaced by gods.
Anyways over the coming days I will get more into detail about these differences, as well the similarities, between this and Noah's flood. Like I said, I swear I was reading the same story at times...truly fascinating.
One thing I want to note is that the flood story from this epic is not about Gilgamesh himself, rather it is told to Gilgamesh by the flood survivor named Utnapishtim (I've actually seen TV documentaries get that bit wrong), who is the story's version of Noah. Utnapishtim even builds an equivalent to the Ark which he takes animals on as well (it's not as apparent while reading it, but that is the case), although it is a giant cube apparently with all sides being the same.
Besides the name there are a couple other key differences to this story. For instance there are multiple gods, in particular the Anunnaki whom you should all know from my adventures into the works of Zecharia Sitchin. In fact it is the Anunnaki named Enlil who apparently rashly decides to destroy humanity with a large flood because they have angered him and many of the other Anunnaki.
The other primary difference is that the flooding process itself lasts only 7 days and 6 nights as opposed to the 40 days of Noah's flood. There is also a really cool description process here telling about gods drawing back gates and releasing water, burning the human settlement, and much more. It's almost like reading about a Viking or pirate raid, only the Vikings and pirates are replaced by gods.
Anyways over the coming days I will get more into detail about these differences, as well the similarities, between this and Noah's flood. Like I said, I swear I was reading the same story at times...truly fascinating.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A new look at an old book: The Bible, Annunaki, and gods, oh my!
I'm currently attempting to read my way through the entirety of that ancient tome known as the Bible (currently in the book Numbers) just for the sake of it. I'm actually finding it quite entertaining, especially after having read The 12th Planet by Zecharia Sitchin, which is causing me to look at it (the Bible) from a slightly different angle. There are also some oddities in the Old Testament, particularly in Genesis and Exodus that lead me to believe God was/is a being with a physical form and no, I don't mean Jesus.
From the start you get the idea that God was literally here on Earth appearing in person to people (which John claims is impossible in the New Testament by the way). You can hear him walking through the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve saw him. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and a few others I haven't mentioned saw him. He also bizarrely appears in a "meeting tent" to Moses in a couple books of the Bible. Whilst God is in the tent, there is a cloud of smoke and fire around it as well.
Now, why if God is omnipotent/omnipresent, does he need to appear in a meeting tent? Also why the smoke and fire around the tent? It would seem to me that while he should be able to just appear/speak to whoever he wants to without need of a tent to hide his presence; simply making himself visible and heard only to the ones he wants his presence known to without having to put on a big show.
There also seems to be many references to the existence of multiple gods in the Old Testament (here's a really interesting post on someones blog, I found about this), ones where God (well technically the Lord as the Christian versions of the OT calls him. I really want to get a copy of the OT in english, but with the Hebrew words for God/gods remaining in their orignal state so I can better understand the possible contexts) recognizes the apparent esistence of these other gods. It's even mentioned that he passes judement on them.
For some reason I can't help, but wonder if these "other gods" are possibly related to the Annunaki/Nefilim of Sumerian myth, even possibly being the aliens Zecharia Sitchin proposes them to be. With them basically pretending to be gods, perhaps the real God (the Annunaki did believe in a creator from what I understand) decided to come into the picture and correct a mess the Annunaki started.
I think there is a bigger picture in all of this that is slowly coming together the more I read. Perhaps I ought to dig more into some of the other religions that were around at the same time Judaism was the big shot monotheistic one. In particular I want to get a hold of some books on Sumerian/Babylonian myth that are not skewed in Zecharia Sitchin's (although I do want some more books of his. I feel some of his research is more credible then many give him credit for) ideas, and also some on Zoroastrianism, which shared many of the same concepts with Judaism.
Oddly, I don't fully know why I'm so interested in this, but I have an urge, almost a need to keep digging into it. Things seem to get more strange the farther I dig to, so I think that puts it right up my alley. Who knows, perhaps I wind up so close to the truth that I go mad in all to Lovecraftian manner, which would be kind of cool. Although I'd feel sorry for my family, since I'm crazy enough as it is.
From the start you get the idea that God was literally here on Earth appearing in person to people (which John claims is impossible in the New Testament by the way). You can hear him walking through the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve saw him. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and a few others I haven't mentioned saw him. He also bizarrely appears in a "meeting tent" to Moses in a couple books of the Bible. Whilst God is in the tent, there is a cloud of smoke and fire around it as well.
Now, why if God is omnipotent/omnipresent, does he need to appear in a meeting tent? Also why the smoke and fire around the tent? It would seem to me that while he should be able to just appear/speak to whoever he wants to without need of a tent to hide his presence; simply making himself visible and heard only to the ones he wants his presence known to without having to put on a big show.
There also seems to be many references to the existence of multiple gods in the Old Testament (here's a really interesting post on someones blog, I found about this), ones where God (well technically the Lord as the Christian versions of the OT calls him. I really want to get a copy of the OT in english, but with the Hebrew words for God/gods remaining in their orignal state so I can better understand the possible contexts) recognizes the apparent esistence of these other gods. It's even mentioned that he passes judement on them.
For some reason I can't help, but wonder if these "other gods" are possibly related to the Annunaki/Nefilim of Sumerian myth, even possibly being the aliens Zecharia Sitchin proposes them to be. With them basically pretending to be gods, perhaps the real God (the Annunaki did believe in a creator from what I understand) decided to come into the picture and correct a mess the Annunaki started.
I think there is a bigger picture in all of this that is slowly coming together the more I read. Perhaps I ought to dig more into some of the other religions that were around at the same time Judaism was the big shot monotheistic one. In particular I want to get a hold of some books on Sumerian/Babylonian myth that are not skewed in Zecharia Sitchin's (although I do want some more books of his. I feel some of his research is more credible then many give him credit for) ideas, and also some on Zoroastrianism, which shared many of the same concepts with Judaism.
Oddly, I don't fully know why I'm so interested in this, but I have an urge, almost a need to keep digging into it. Things seem to get more strange the farther I dig to, so I think that puts it right up my alley. Who knows, perhaps I wind up so close to the truth that I go mad in all to Lovecraftian manner, which would be kind of cool. Although I'd feel sorry for my family, since I'm crazy enough as it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)