Christians, watch this [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

tjohn

15-11-2008, 03:49 PM

http://i-cias.com/e.o/ur.htm
Ancient city in Mesopotamia (http://i-cias.com/e.o/mesopotamia.htm), in what today is southern Iraq (http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq.htm). Ur existed for a period of approximately 3,700 years.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/x/t.gifToday only ruins are left, and they lie in the desert landscape of al-Hajar. Originally was Ur in a fertile area, near the outlet of the Euphrates river (http://i-cias.com/e.o/euphrats.htm), and on what was the coast of the Persian Gulf (http://i-cias.com/e.o/pers_glf.htm) a few thousand years ago. Today, Ur lies about 220 km west of the sea.
Abram came from Ur which was in Sumer...

Gen 11:31 "Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there."
Gen 15:7 "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngJ-H7fjsAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngJ-H7fjsAk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngJ-H7fjsAkTake special note towards the end and see the parallels. Note also that the flood was described in these earlier texts.
.................

www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aBeiZ2PWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aBeiZ2PWk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28aBeiZ2PWk Are we beginning to see a picture here?

tjohn

17-11-2008, 02:04 AM

hi; tjohn:

Here is some interesting info on this Topic. enjoy :)
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

I think it is wonderful the Sumerian scribes had the foresight to compile 'word lists' so that later researchers could Translate with a reasonable degree of accuracy, thus preserving the context and Content.

The Divine Council, Psalm 82 materiel is quite informative. Not very funny.

I personally don’t think that Mr Sitchin has every word right but there’s no way he could have got it all wrong. Do we think that Sitchin got so many words wrong that for instance, he made the Sumerian story of the flood up? The Sumerian stories contain many similarities to bible but in the Sumerian text there is more detail and by the flood story alone (which has more detail), it should be obvious that the bible is a distorted interpretation of earlier texts.

The Sumerian texts describe the Tigress and Euphrates rivers and a place called Edin (Eden) - just coincidence? Of course it isn’t, because Sumer was the place where those rivers and Eden were located. Then Abram came from Ur in Sumer; so why do people discount texts that were written at Abram’s place of origin, in favour of the bible which is a distorted interpretation?

While Michael Sheiser explains the plurality of Elohim as meaning singular or plural, ‘God’ or gods, and it can also mean king or kings, ruler or rulers, judge or judges – any person or persons in authority above others, human or otherwise (yes I do know what Elohim is said to mean), he doesn’t quote or compare the Sumerian texts. He’s a ‘cleaver‘ writer but if he was such a brilliant scholar of ancient languages - and if he was unbiased – knowing as he must, that the Sumerian texts came first, he would quote them both and compare them but he doesn’t, because like many, he takes the bible’s Hebrew interpretation as authority.

……………

Something here in regard to Elohim:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/letusmake.htm Let Us make man in our image
There are several verses in the Old Testament where God speaks as a plurality. Many trinitarians quote these verses to help support the Trinity (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm) doctrine because they strongly suggest that there is more than one person in the godhead. So now we have people saying that there are more than one but because it is assumed that the bible is talking about one God, they are saying that it could be referring to a mysterious three-in-one, because according to them, it cannot mean a pantheon of gods – yet gods is one accepted meaning of Elohim which because monotheism came later, the singular meanings came later. To give a simple example of how meanings of words can change; today the word shambles means a mess but a few hundred years ago it meant a market place. This is similar to what they do with bible words when they refuse to take into account earlier texts than the bible.

The Sumerian texts spell out who the “us” and the “we” and the “our” are but they can't have that can they, because of an unfounded belief that the bible's "Let us make man in our image" is talking about one God.

"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm#And), NASB).

"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_3.htm#21%C2%A0), NASB).

“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_11.htm#1%C2%A0), NASB).

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Isaiah/Isaiah_6.htm#1%C2%A0), NASB)

Those opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm) say that God is speaking of Himself in any "royal" sense, in a "plural of majesty." They can say this, but biblically there is never any account of a king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the third person. So, there is no biblical support for God using it of Himself in this way.

In regards to Gen. 1:26 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm#And), those who deny the Trinity say that God when God says, "Let Us make..." He is speaking with the angels (http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_a-b.htm#Angel) in mind. The problem with this is that angels do not create. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels created anything at all. We see in Isaiah 44:24 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Isaiah/Isaiah_44.htm#24%C2%A0), "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." God made all things alone. Therefore, the "us" in "Let Us make man in our image" cannot be the angels. Furthermore, people are not created in the image of angels, but of God. It says that ‘angels’ are not able to create and this is based on assumption that only one person was involved in creating us. Then just because someone claims to have made everything, it doesn’t have to make it so – not forgetting what the Hebrew God did to people (including children) in his hatred towards whole nations, that he claimed to have created! Therefore, the Hebrew god is not only a liar but also murderer.

The three verses in Genesis do not prove that the Trinity is true. However, they cannot be dismissed by the assumption that God is speaking of himself in a type of third person way.
Furthermore, notice in the force verse above, Isaiah 6:8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Isaiah/Isaiah_6.htm#1%C2%A0), that's God is speaking in the singular and then switches to the plural. He says, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" This is on the unusual construction. The singular speaker refers to himself in the plural. “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" makes perfect sense when the person who said it was one of many individuals!