Fallen watchers? Wild!

[Vash]

I love unusual conspiracy theories, so when I saw this paper on another forum, I thought it might make good discussion here. I haven't read it yet, I plan to tonite or tomorrow.

 

[Sunstone]

There aren't enough conspiracy theories already?

 

[Vash]

OMG! This conspiracy theory is SOO wild! I've never read a theory that touched so many bases. I mean this guy wraps it all up. Aliens, secret societies, babylon, mythological monsters, ancient gods, mars, the pyramids...

I was really hoping some people here might read it, I'm curious what a bible expert would think about his interpretations.

So please ppl read up, its a facinating read.

 

[Halcyon]

I've read this all before, i'll be honest i only skim-read this article because, well its massive and if you ask me waffles alot.

It would make a great sci-fi story, in fact i'm in the process of writing a novel using some of these ideas plus the book of Revelation. The fact is though, its just a different interpretation of the same scriptures - i researched it alot for my story and found many contradictory parts elsewhere in the bible and many of the texts used could mean anything.

Its interesting, but unlikely to be true.

 

[michel]

I must admit I gave up after a short while; it seemed like a total waste of time.

 

[Vash]

I must admit I gave up after a short while; it seemed like a total waste of time.

Oh well different strokes for different folks.

I find theories like this fascinating! In the arizona dessert (where I'm from) the sky is so clear you can see lots of strange things...

 

[No*s]

I couldn't get past the first paragraph. He insists on the importance of etymology and uses Strong's Concordance as a principle source. That's an oxymoron if ever I saw one . He further talks about "adding words" to the Bible. The words that are added are more oftend done so by necessity; they are different languages. As a result, there is no way to get "6000 added words." It's impossible to collate such a figure.

With those errors in the first paragraph, I didn't think I could trust him elsewhere in the document, so I went no further. Most likely, my brain would be crossing wondering how on earth somebody could come to that conclusion. In fact, it already was in the first paragraph...

 

[Vash]

He insists on the importance of etymology and uses Strong's Concordance as a principle source. That's an oxymoron if ever I saw one .

why is it an oxymoron? plz elaborate

 

[oracle]

I love unusual conspiracy theories, so when I saw this paper on another forum, I thought it might make good discussion here. I haven't read it yet, I plan to tonite or tomorrow.

I tend to dislike conspiracy theories, some of them I find disgustful because of how rediculous they are. A lot of conspiracy theories are created by the "unedumacated" type. I really don't believe that the "Sons of God are aliens", and I don't believe that UFO's were really involved in the bible. This man leads to wild conclusions with no evidense.

 

[No*s]

why is it an oxymoron? plz elaborate

Etymology is the study of the origin and meaning of words. It takes serious time and effort to get down well. Strong's Concordance is a dictionary that gives one form for a word, lists as brief a definition as possible, and analyzes words as they are translated in the King James. It's so brief that it is really completely misleading to a person learning Greek and Hebrew, and it is completely useless to someone who can read it. It's a tool for pastors and laymen who don't want to put the time into serious linguistic study of the Bible to say "And it says in the Greek..." without ever doing the work.

There's a further problem that while it's definitions are brief, it says absolutely nothing about its usage and context. This is just as important as the definitions of words. Still more, word forms change and there are hidden etymological clues in other tenses or voices. Strong's does not list these. For instance, the word for "I speak" is λέγω the aorist form ("I spoke") is εἶπον. It's a result of the combination of two separate words. Strong's cannot even hint at this, because it doesn't have the information in it.

A last point of weakness between Strong's and etymology is that Strong's covers only the NT. It can't give you any idea about the usage of the same terms in the Septuagint, much less other Semitic Greek of the Hellenistic era. It doesn't cover Attic Greek, and it doesn't even touch on Homeric Greek. It doesn't cover Greek later than the first century. If he was doing that, then he would be using better tools, because Strong's simply cannot work at all with them. The fact that he doesn't tells me he cannot read the texts and that he hasn't examined them.

With the above in mind, I think you will understand how I would consider reliable information on etymology from study of Strong's Concordance on the same level I would a peace-loving arms dealer. It simply doesn't go together. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if Strong's were simply not published anymore, but there are too many people that don't want to do the work and still say "the Greek says..." :banghead3

 

[Vash]

Etymology is the study of the origin and meaning of words. It takes serious time and effort to get down well. Strong's Concordance is a dictionary that gives one form for a word, lists as brief a definition as possible, and analyzes words as they are translated in the King James. It's so brief that it is really completely misleading to a person learning Greek and Hebrew, and it is completely useless to someone who can read it. It's a tool for pastors and laymen who don't want to put the time into serious linguistic study of the Bible to say "And it says in the Greek..." without ever doing the work.

There's a further problem that while it's definitions are brief, it says absolutely nothing about its usage and context. This is just as important as the definitions of words. Still more, word forms change and there are hidden etymological clues in other tenses or voices. Strong's does not list these. For instance, the word for "I speak" is λέγω the aorist form ("I spoke") is εἶπον. It's a result of the combination of two separate words. Strong's cannot even hint at this, because it doesn't have the information in it.

A last point of weakness between Strong's and etymology is that Strong's covers only the NT. It can't give you any idea about the usage of the same terms in the Septuagint, much less other Semitic Greek of the Hellenistic era. It doesn't cover Attic Greek, and it doesn't even touch on Homeric Greek. It doesn't cover Greek later than the first century. If he was doing that, then he would be using better tools, because Strong's simply cannot work at all with them. The fact that he doesn't tells me he cannot read the texts and that he hasn't examined them.

With the above in mind, I think you will understand how I would consider reliable information on etymology from study of Strong's Concordance on the same level I would a peace-loving arms dealer. It simply doesn't go together. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if Strong's were simply not published anymore, but there are too many people that don't want to do the work and still say "the Greek says..." :banghead3

let me give you an example then, since you didnt read far, and you can (if you are so inclined) illustrate how he is making a mistake. This part seems to be at the root of the conspiracy theory:

"There were N E P H I L L I M in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown". (Gen.6:4)

"I want to make this perfectly clear, the word "giants" translated in your bible is a clear cut INTERPRETATION LIBERTY from the Greek. The wrong "root" was chosen for the translation of the word "giants" on purpose. The root that was used is gigantes (giants), but thats NOT correct. Yes, they were "giant", but thats not WHAT they were. The translators did not interpret from the source root. The primitive root of "gigantes" in the Greek translates "gigas", meaning EARTHBORN. They are also called "gibbhor" or "gibborim" in the Hebrew. You see, your King James bible is translated from the Greek and Hebrew from cover to cover!. In the case of Gen.6:4, the translators specifically chose the Septuagint LXX for the word "giants", which was translated from Hebrew to Greek. The reason?, the source origin Hebrew translation is too "un-believable" (even though its true), because they REFUTED the "angel view". The correct translation in the Hebrew is [Strong's ref. 5303 nephiyl - nef-eel; prop. a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant: - giant]. Its proper use in the plural for this word is NEPHILLIM (giants). Though this is the root given, it is NOT all of the meaning of the word. You must "trace the roots , to find the fruit", and what you come up with is [Strong's ref. 5307 naphal- naw-fal; a prim. root; to fall, be cast down, cease, fugitive, die, fail, be judged, throw down] and also the ancient chaldean root [Strong's ref. 5309 nephel- neh-fel; something fallen, i.e.an abortion]. Though these are descriptive words for these "offspring" (nephillim), they are much more descriptive of their "fathers" who bore them. What seems to give the credence to the "rape" scenario, is the use of the words "...came in unto..." in Gen.6:4. It implies that of "forcefulness". Also quite interesting, is the term "...and they bare children unto them". It might not seem curious to you at first, but God already stated at the top of the verse that"... there were nephillim (giants) in the earth in those days...". He is emphasizing the fact that there was a definite "sexual union" between human females and "fallen angels", creating a HYBRID progeny called the nephillim. These are what are referred to in ancient mythology as DEMI-GODS(half man - half God)."

 

[No*s]

let me give you an example then, since you didnt read far, and you can (if you are so inclined) illustrate how he is making a mistake. This part seems to be at the root of the conspiracy theory:

His interpretation there rests on the Hebrew language. Sadly, I read Greek, not Hebrew. I can evaluate his source (Strong's Concordance), because the nature of his Hebrew lexicon is substantially the same as the Greek, and I can read Greek in many varieties. Without the proper study, I cannot evaluate it well.

However, I can say this much: it is at variance with what my OT instructer in the university said. She, who I know can read Hebrew, said that the meaning and origin of the term "nephilim" is a mystery and that we really don't know.

He's correct on one level on gigantes, but that's as far as I can analyze: Greek. However, that doesn't analyze the strength of his case.

 

[Vash]

the meaning and origin of the term "nephilim" is a mystery and that we really don't know.

So, for all we know, his interpretation of nephilim could be correct? please excuse my ignorance...when it comes to the bible I don't have much background.

He's correct on one level on gigantes, but that's as far as I can analyze: Greek. However, that doesn't analyze the strength of his case.

if he is correct on one level, that implies he may be correct on another. If every possible mistake/misinterpretation on his part were removed from the paper, we could still be left with some interesting questions, no?

 

[No*s]

So, for all we know, his interpretation of nephilim could be correct? please excuse my ignorance...when it comes to the bible I don't have much background.

Yes, that is the gist of it, and I don't read Hebrew. For this we need Jewscout to pop in .

if he is correct on one level, that implies he may be correct on another. If every possible mistake/misinterpretation on his part were removed from the paper, we could still be left with some interesting questions, no?

However, he is also relying on faulty sources. If I see someone using a severely flawed source or method, then I get really skeptical about what I don't know, even if there are strong points. Strong's Concordance is simply a poor source .

Now on the theory, I've held to something similar but without a biblical argument. Namely that the Adversary manifests himself however it is useful for a particular culture. Today we have UFOs. I tend to view them as a combination of government experiments, the Adversary's work, and hoaxes. So, no, I'm not discounting the theory .

 

[Vash]

Yes, that is the gist of it, and I don't read Hebrew. For this we need Jewscout to pop in .



However, he is also relying on faulty sources. If I see someone using a severely flawed source or method, then I get really skeptical about what I don't know, even if there are strong points. Strong's Concordance is simply a poor source .

Now on the theory, I've held to something similar but without a biblical argument. Namely that the Adversary manifests himself however it is useful for a particular culture. Today we have UFOs. I tend to view them as a combination of government experiments, the Adversary's work, and hoaxes. So, no, I'm not discounting the theory .

very open-minded of you

i'm glad to see that a down-to-earth, intelligent Christian is at least willing to entertain the notion.

do you think it coincidence that Israel, the ufo phenomena, and the dead sea scrolls were all around the same time? (1947 i think)

 

[No*s]

very open-minded of you

i'm glad to see that a down-to-earth, intelligent Christian is at least willing to entertain the notion.

do you think it coincidence that Israel, the ufo phenomena, and the dead sea scrolls were all around the same time? (1947 i think)

I'm not accused of being open-minded too often .

Yes, I do. I don't see a need to connect them. The DSS are perfectly explained by the play of some young Bedouins, and what a valuable find it was. Israel's creation was a direct result of the Holocaust and previous promises. Of these, I don't have an easy explanation of "why" on the UFO phenomena. I don't have an explanation for the modern fascination with it (except maybe people projecting religious desires into a new avenue).

I would probably have more concrete statements had I been following the UFO phenomena more, but I've tended to examine it with more of a passing interest.

 

[Vash]

I'm not accused of being open-minded too often .

Yes, I do. I don't see a need to connect them. The DSS are perfectly explained by the play of some young Bedouins, and what a valuable find it was. Israel's creation was a direct result of the Holocaust and previous promises. Of these, I don't have an easy explanation of "why" on the UFO phenomena. I don't have an explanation for the modern fascination with it (except maybe people projecting religious desires into a new avenue).

I would probably have more concrete statements had I been following the UFO phenomena more, but I've tended to examine it with more of a passing interest.

as a native to the arizona desert, ive seen a LOT of strange stuff...otherwise i wouldnt have looked twice at this particular conspiracy theory. ive also experienced what could be called 'paranormal' or 'spiritual' phenomena, so a theory tieing them together is particularly fascinating.

if you investigated the ufo phenomena from a 'new age' perspective, you would find many eye opening things, my friend. particularly the 'religious messages' that are 'channeled' to humans from the 'aliens'.

 

[No*s]

as a native to the arizona desert, ive seen a LOT of strange stuff...otherwise i wouldnt have looked twice at this particular conspiracy theory. ive also experienced what could be called 'paranormal' or 'spiritual' phenomena, so a theory tieing them together is particularly fascinating.

if you investigated the ufo phenomena from a 'new age' perspective, you would find many eye opening things, my friend. particularly the 'religious messages' that are 'channeled' to humans from the 'aliens'.

I've never been to Arizona, only New Mexico .

I've ran across the religious aspect before. The movement seems more religious to me than not, but like I said, I've not delved into it very far. No matter the causes, though, it is definately religious. This would be true whether it's psychological, sociological, people just seeing government stuff, hoaxes, or the demonic.

 

[Vash]

one thing i found striking was the similarity between the aliens message and the lies that the devil uses i.e 'ye shall be as gods'

the strong anti-Christian aspect is also suspicious

also the fact that many 'aliens' take the names of ancient pagan gods

 

[Saw11_2000]

http://ufos.about.com/cs/famoussightings/index.htm

My favorites:
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa031698.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa101600a.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa020700a.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa090997.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa100200a.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa022100a.htm

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa030998.htm

This one's really strange.
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa011000a.htm

Again very strange.
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa010698.htm