Pope Paul’s Vl Pontificate has faded from popular memory,
completely overshadowed by that of John Paul II.
However it is worth remembering at this time that in 1969 he
unequivocally blessed and hailed the Apollo Moon-landing,
upholding the Vatican’s tradition of support for science,
astronomy and the application of human reason.
“Honor, greetings and blessings to you, conquerors of the moon,
pale lamp of our nights and our dreams!” was his resounding
message to the Apollo 11 astronauts. “Today,” he said, “We
celebrate a sublime victory!”
Pope Paul spent the night of July 20/21, 1969, watching the moon
through the telescope of the Vatican Observatory at his summer
residence at Castel Gandolfo. Like countless millions of others
he then watched the landing and the first moon-walk on
television.
Following his message and a congratulatory telegram to President
Nixon, the Pope wrote at length about the event. To mark the 40th
anniversary of the landing Vatican Radio is publishing its
collection of his reflections on the event, talks he gave, and
the text of his speech to the Apollo 11 Astronauts who he met at
the Vatican on October 16, 1969. These make it plain that the
Pope was an enthusiast for space exploration.
The Pope said Armstrong’s words about “one giant leap for
mankind” were right on the mark.
“Man has a natural urge to explore the unknown, to know the
unknown, yet man also has a fear of the unknowns,” the Pope told
the astronauts. “Your bravery has transcended this fear and
through your intrepid adventure man has taken another step
towards knowing more of the universe.”
He said the talent, energy, and teamwork behind the moon-shot
“pay tribute to the capacity of modern man to reach beyond
himself, to attain perfection of achievement made possible by
God-given talent.” He said he prayed that the knowledge of the
Creation would continue to grow and would enable God’s power,
infinity and perfection to be seen more clearly.
In a number of audiences and addresses earlier in the same year
he had emphasized that the Catholic Church applauded the
accomplishments of science, technology, and human ingenuity. He
also made the point that science must also be applied to solving
problems on Earth.
The Pope was carrying on a tradition of the church which existed
from very early times, when the Church played a primary role in
lifting astronomy out of astrology. (At the tail-end of the Roman
Empire Saint Augustine of Hippo refuted astrology by referring to
babies born under identical stars who nevertheless led completely
different lives. Even when astrology still infected science and
thought in general, the Church said such influence could be
overcome by Free Will).
J. L. Heilbron of the University of California has said: “The
Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support
to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery
of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the
Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other,
institutions.”
Modern astronomy may be said to have begun with Copernicus, a
Catholic priest, who dedicated his 1543 work, On the Orbits
of Heavenly Bodies, to the Pope of the day. Galileo might
have avoided trouble as easily as Copernicus did if he had shown
a little more diplomatic skill and common sense, for example if
he had refrained from mocking a Pope who had befriended and
honored him.
The contribution of the Catholic Church to astronomy was massive
and unequalled. Without it astronomy might very well never have
grown out of astrology at all. The cathedrals in Bologna,
Florence, Paris, Rome and elsewhere, for example, were designed
in the 17th and 18th centuries to function as solar
observatories. Each cathedral contained holes through which
measured rays of sunlight could enter and meridian lines on the
floor.
Kepler was helped by a number of Jesuit astronomers, including
Father Paul Guldin and Father Zucchi, and by Giovanni Cassini,
who studied under Jesuits. Cassini and Jesuit colleagues were
eventually able to confirm Kepler’s theory on the Earth having an
elliptical orbit.
Pope Gregory VIII, who founded the Vatican Observatory in 1578,
employed the calculations of Copernicus in 1582 to correct the
calendar and bring it into accord with the true movement of the
Earth, a task of enormous importance and responsibility.
Rocco| 7.24.09 @ 7:36AM
Well done, Mr. Colebatch!! It's sad that this kind of thing is not taught in schools any more. As you correctly note, the Church has been supportive of science since its early centuries, to include the scientists you mention, up through Gregor Mendel, an Austrian priest who developed the genetics field in the 1800's, to the present day. All too often, the popular view of the Church, vis-a-vis science, espoused and spread by the class of BS artists commonly known as journalists, is one of a superstitious, fearful organization which thrived on suppressing this. (Don't anyone try to bring up Galileo!)
I enjoy your writing.
cdc| 7.24.09 @ 9:38AM
The most important step now is the space elevator. This will be the most important strategic and economic asset of the next century and is of such a scale and risk that the government is the only agency capable of building it. It is the equivalent of the panama canal, and will be one of the great ahievements of man.
The sooner the better.
Jeannine| 7.24.09 @ 10:39AM
Thank you Mr Colebatch for an excellent essay. I wish to add for further reading on the Catholic Church's other contributions to science & other disciplines is a book written by my fellow Columbia University alumnus, Thomas Woods, called How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
Al Adab| 7.24.09 @ 11:31AM
Space exploration is the great enterprise of mankind. The U. S. however had better get busy or its legacy will be, having given men the moon, to retire from exploration altogether. We remain too focused on ourselves and not on the future of humanity.
As the Astronauts begin to fade toward old age they and their heroism cry out for others, "who will follow where I led"? We owe it to them and to those future generation to agressivly renew these travels.
China in the 1400's turned its back on the world, we must not turn ours on these worlds.
Tim| 7.24.09 @ 11:36AM
"Open the pod bay doors Hal"
Pingback| 7.24.09 @ 5:08PM
*BREAKING: ZELAYA INVADES HONDURAS THRU NICARAGUA « FactReal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 7.24.09 @ 11:19PM
The Holy Father hit the nail squarely on the head regarding man's need and ability to explore. On to Mars!
Richard L. Kent, Esq. | 7.25.09 @ 1:28AM
But.... but.... but.... I thought that the cath-o-lick church was against science! They said they were stopping research on fetal stem cells! The scientists all said they were preventing all sorts of SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT because they couldn't do what they wanted with embryos!
Are you implying that ... that .... they LIED??!?!!
/sarc
hopesome| 7.25.09 @ 8:16AM
When you have no healthcare to speak of and are constantly under the threat of 'what if I get sick' then to 'kick the ball about' for new health care plans is a must. So if you can't even provide for your people here on earth, What the heck are you doing spending billions on space exploration and whether the present pope or the past pope says ye or ney is a 'so what' big deal who the heck does he think he is 'kind of thing don't you think.
When will Americas wake up and take care of their own people instead of taking care of everyone elses or thinking that they are.
Pingback| 7.25.09 @ 10:14PM
Astronomy and the Catholic Church : The Pink Flamingo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
hopesome| 7.26.09 @ 6:24AM
Science and the like is merely fascination.
How come in all these years of so called science we have yet to really cure someone, instead of merely mending 'the parts'.
They say we have 'found a cure'. No you spend billions looking for one.
Astronomy links one part of science to earths so called 'turn' (movements) in a space orientated time function. It is PART OF ' not a cure for.
Whilst we spend so much time on its fascination and try to understand exactly how we fit into it and that particular part of it, we miss the main point.
Science, in one sense, is why we are in this mess and yet we look for its redemptions. If astronomy's answers were that simple we would have had it by now, the enemy, however, likes to keep us 'otherwise engaged' so that the TRUTH IS NEVER, IN ITS WHOLE REALLY MADE KNOWN UNTO US.
Ask yourselves. WHY DO WE KNOW ONLY IN PART.
Because an enemy bent on lies and being in control likes to keep it that way.
A loving lord shows you why you are in part and never denies you the whole if you are willing to walk with him towards it.
wake up people we have spent so long being fascinated by
Richard Baker| 7.26.09 @ 10:55AM
Being against the slaughter of embryos does not constitute being against science. Obviously, you'd have found Dr. Mengele's "experimentation" acceptable is he'd just worked with embryos. Oh, by the way, that "research" has yielded exactly ZERO uses. If you're going to use something as a stalking horse for abortion, try again. Obviously, you see abortion as some kind of Pagan Holy Sacrament. Sorry to hear that.
Jews behina a FRAUD| 7.26.09 @ 2:18PM
Behind The Bible Fraud -
What Was The Church
Trying To Hide?
By Robert Adams
New Dawn Magazine.com
6-21-5
Be sure to reload this page for the latest comments!
When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's The Bible Fraud, her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God." Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible.
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
As Tony points out, the history of our 'genuine' Bibles is a convoluted one. Firstly we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.
Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone.
Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.
The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls" was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud.
In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon"
The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page.
The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, as Tony points out, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.
Historical Fraud| 7.26.09 @ 2:31PM
When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's The Bible Fraud, her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God." Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible.
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
As Tony points out, the history of our 'genuine' Bibles is a convoluted one. Firstly we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.
Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone.
Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.
The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls" was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud.
In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon"
The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page.
The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, as Tony points out, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.
By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory.
When Emperor Constantine conquered the East in 324, he sent his Spanish religious advisor, Osius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several Biscops exhorting them to make peace among their own. But the mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestions of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all Presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithymia, the country of Asia. The Presbyters were instructed by the Emperor to bring with them the manuscripts from which they orated to the rabble (that's us!) "wrapped and bound in leather".
Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325.
On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God.
Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god.
After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161votes for and 157 votes against). The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation. The doctrine of the Celtic / British church of the west was democratically attached to the Presbyters stories of the east.
A deification ceremony was then performed 'Apotheosis'. Thus the deified ones were then called 'saviours' and looked upon as gods. Temples, altars, and images with attributes of divinity were then erected and public holidays proclaimed on their birthdays.
Following the original example set by the deification of Caesar, their funerals were dramatized as the scene of their resurrection and immortality. All these godly attributes passed as a legal right to Emperor Constantine's new deity, Jesus Christ.
The Emperor then instructed Bishop Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings "bound together as one" using the stories from the large collection of Presbyters as his reference source. Eusebius was to arrange for the production of "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in the art". This was the first mention of finished copies of a Christian 'New Testament' in the history of mankind.
As one can imagine, to condense the real life of the Jesus Christ, the Church and His teachings with supporting evidence into a short article is very difficult. It is therefore wise for those who wish to have supportable evidence to read and study Tony Bushby's epic work, The Bible Fraud, along with it's detailed blood lines (family trees) and over 869 references. (see www.thebiblefraud.com)
However, attempting to summarize what Tony has written..... in 325 AD, the first Christian council was called at Nicaea to bring the stories of twin brothers, Jesus 'the Rabbi' and Judas Khrestus into one deity that we now know as Jesus Christ. Tony says they were not born of virgin birth but to Nabatean Arab Mariamne Herod (now known as the Virgin Mary) and fathered by Tiberius ben Panthera, a Roman Centurion. The brothers were raised in the Essene community and became Khrists of their faith. Rabbi Jesus later was initiated in Egypt at the highest of levels similar to the 33rd degree of Freemasonry of which many Prime ministers and Presidents around the world today are members. He then later married three wives, one of whom we know as a Mary Magdalene, a Druidic Princess, stole the Torah from the temple and moved to Lud, now London.
Tony believes the reason Jesus stole the Torah was that he said it contained "a very special secret", which he was going to reveal that secret to the world. He was stoned to death and the Torah taken from him before he could.
The elder brother, Judas Khrestus, with his "Khrestian" followers conspired to take the throne of Rome, his royal birthright, and was captured, tried, and was sentenced to be crucified. (The "Khrestians" and the Essenic army, the Nazarenes, would today be likened to terrorists.) At the trial, Judas exercised his royal birthright to have a replacement in Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:41) and then was sold as a slave to live out his days as a carpenter in India.
Rabbi Jesus spent a considerable amount of time at the Palace of the British in Rome and sometime around 48 AD, he left for Egypt to pursue his greatest esoteric goal. The spiritual knowledge from his secret education in the Essene and Druid movements was soon to be elevated to the highest level possible - initiation into the innermost rite of the Egyptian temples.
It was probable that Rabbi Jesus' earlier initiation into both the Essene and Druid schools played a major part in his acceptance into the Egyptian school. The Druids could claim a very early origin and the essence of their wisdom was also that of the Essenes. In the case of the Essenes, it is possible to show that their movement was specifically established to preserve secret information, for they knew and used the sacred writing of the Initiates. The full meaning of the point being made by Bushby is that in the case of all Secret Schools, the inner and ultimate Mystery was revealed only to a High Initiate.
Those who were initiated into the Ancient mysteries took a solemn oath never to reveal what had passed within the sacred walls. Every year only a comparatively few Egyptian initiations were conducted, and the number of persons who knew their secrets was never at any time large. The initiations always took place with the onset of darkness and the candidate was entranced for periods of varying length, depending upon the level of the degree for which he had entered.
The first initiatory step involved a forty-day procedure that basically involved purification, not only in physical form, but dissolving all tendencies to evil thoughts, purifying the mind as well. It appears that he would have fasted, alternatively on vegetables, juices and very special herbal concoctions.
The New Testament recorded that this happened to Rabbi Jesus who "was led into the desert.... and he fasted forty days and forty nights" (Matt. 4:1-2).
This trial period involved more than just fasting. During the forty days and nights' ordeal, Tony says the candidate was required to study astronomical charts to supplement his skills in astronomy and memorize charts of the heavens. They were also given a particular ritual from which to memorize certain passwords, secret signs and handclasps, skills that are still practiced to this day in Freemasonry.
These initiations were not limited to Egypt. The ancient civilizations inherited these Mysteries from a remote antiquity and they constituted part of a primitive revelation from the gods to the human race. Almost every people of pre-Christian times possessed its institution and tradition of the mysteries. The Romans, the Druids of Britain, the Greeks, the Cretans, the Syrians, the Hindus, the Persians, the Maya and the American Indians, among others, had corresponding temples and rites with a system of graduated illuminations for the initiates.
The modern world knows little of these ancient rites yet they were conducted in a huge variety of buildings the world over.
Fraud by Jews| 7.26.09 @ 2:54PM
Last Updated: Saturday, December 18, 2004 06:33:27 PM
Fraud in the Bible
or
It Sucks That You Don't Know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic
http://www.mksmith.org/
What is Pious Fraud?
Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day.
During the first couple of centuries of the Common Era the early Christian priest craft, which would eventually become the early Catholic fathers, were in the process of assimilating religions from all over Europe. Ultimately the new religion become known as the Christian religion, or more accurately The Catholic Church. The Bible was put together by hundreds of people who were either at the head of the fraud or were pawns in its assembly. Once the original languages were translated into Latin, it was only a matter of time before the original language nuances could be discarded. Ever wonder why it was punishable by death to read the Bible during the Middle Ages? Punishable by death by the common folk to read it, that is. Well, the reason was that the priest craft was well aware of the errors, inconsistencies and flat-out lies that riddled the Bible. If the common man found out, it could have been the death of the Church's authority, power and control over the masses. And since the original languages are rarely, if ever, used by those who read the Bible (well, those who actually READ it), the fraud is perpetuated.
When a pious fraud is knowingly perpetuated in the name of power and money, you have deception. Remember, 1700-2000 years ago, when these texts were being assembled into a 'new testament', the vast majority of humanity was illiterate. Science was not known. Demons rules the world. Anything could be put forth and said to be 'absolute truth' when it was in fact, completely fraudulent.
What is the implication of this? The implication is self-evident. The story of Genesis, that Christian proselytizers love to advance (althou it is part of the much older Jewish texts), is a complete and utter forgery. In that story we are led to believe that there was a single god who created the earth, etc. in 6 days. Not only has science proven the timeline to be completely false, the religious aspect is a complete fabrication. At the time that the Genesis story was supposed to have been written the Hebrew people were not monotheistic. That's history. They believed in many gods and Genesis proves it. The story actually goes back to before the Hebrews were a distinct people-it is not Hebrew in origin.
Pious Fraud in Translation
Let's take a look at the very first words of the book of Genesis. Note very carefully that the Hebrew culture, at the time of this writing, was not monotheistic, but rather, polytheistic. Will your priest, minister or preacher tell you that? No. But you can find out for yourself with a simple dictionary.
The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is elohim, gods. What is the first sentence in the Bible?
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).
Here is Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course):
"Bereshith bara elohim," etc.,
"In-beginning created (the) gods (the) heavens and (the) earth."
In the same chapter the word "elohim" (gods) is used thirty times., Those gods are the ones who created the 'universe' in 6 days.
To clarify, here is the translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Notice how Jewish and Christian 'fathers' don't bother to tell you what the original text says. They would like you to believe that a single god created everything. But, they messed up big time and actually translated it properly. In plain English, the translation reads 'let us make man in our image':
Here are three examples of the Hebrew plural gods mentioned in Genesis: 1. "And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man (adam) in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (1:26).
2. And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (3:27).
3. And when the Tower of Babel was being built: "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc.
Elohim
When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic, when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they WERE NOT.
In the three Genesis verses above, there are three different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities: elohim, (gods), falsely translated "God":
Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and Lord (Heb. Yahveh). Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, which, in English, is Jehovah.
Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" which is translated to "Yahveh-of-the-gods." Invariably these personal names were falsely translated "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.
First Man, First Woman
There was no first man "Adam," according to the Hebrew text. The word adam in Hebrew is a common noun, meaning man in a generic sense and in Genesis 1:26, it states:
"And elohim (gods) said, Let us make adam (man)"; and so "elohim created ha- adam (the-man); ... male and female created he them" (1: 27).
In the second creation story, where man is first made alone:
"Yahveh formed ha-adam (the-man) out of the dust of ha-adamah-the ground" (2:7).
Man is called in Hebrew adam because he was formed out of adamah, the ground; just as in Latin man is called homo because he was formed from humus, the ground. Early Christian father Lactantius stated it as 'homo ex humo' ('man from the ground', or 'dust' as it commonly stated today).
The forging of the name Adam from the Hebrew noun adam into a mythical proper name Adam, was after the so-called Exodus. The fraud in the forging of fictitious genealogies from "in the beginning" to Father Abraham.
And this wasn't done by Christians, but rather by early Hebrew priests. Nonetheless, early Christians took this deception and used it for their own newly forged religion.
Who has a Soul?
In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of "nephesh hayyah" which is "the moving creature that hath life," and of "nephesh hayyah-every living creature" out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of "nephesh hayyah-the living creature" out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over "kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life," (1:30.)
The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called "nephesh hayyah," literally "living soul".
In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly "living creatures" (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim "breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim -- (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul". (2:7)
In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.
In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were 'nephesh hayyah' or living souls.
Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture's stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priest craft.
Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and "Creation's masterpiece, Man," became a "living soul." They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.
The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don't have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul. So what happened here? Forgery. That's what happened.
Chalk one up for vegetarians.
There Was No Continuous Hebrew Monotheistic Culture
When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses. How do I know? Read the account. It doesn't take a scholar to read where Moses ASKS who's taking. No, Moses wasn't merely surprised at the voice…he simply didn't know what was going on. (The fact that Moses is just a rehash of the Egyptian Mises is another essay altogether. But for the purposes of this essay, I'm pretending that Moses was a real person.)
Moses did not know this Yahveh, and had never heard of him. So that he asked, "What is thy name?" -so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared-here are the exact words-one of the most notorious falsities in the Hebrew text:
"And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him., anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahveh (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8.)
The Hebrew God for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind the "ineffable name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression.
But this is a notorious lie-since we known that Moses did not write the first five books of the Hebrew text.
In Genesis 2:4, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use as a mystical personage, was when Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh-the Lord." (Gen. 4:1.)
The personal name YAHVEH occurs in the Book of Genesis one hundred and fifty-six times. It's spoken dozens of times by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as any one can read in Genesis. Every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH.
Throughout the Hebrew "scriptures" it occurs thousands of times: "The sacred name occurs in Genesis ~156 times; and is found in the Old Testament approximately 6000 times, either alone or in along with another Divine name."
More exactly, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations." Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the dozens of "gods of the nations". Just as James would distinguish his name from Rudolph, or Cary, this was precisely the Hebrew usage-to distinguish one heathen god from another.
And this the pious translators, foisting their fraud on us, sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -the one and only true God-thru the use of a tetragrammaton.
But yet a more malicious and evil-intentioned deception, 6828 times, is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew texts, as translated, into a semblance of harmony with the false declaration of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."
Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations, except in Psalm 78:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. (But they are irrelevant for this discussion because those passages were written well after the original 5 books were forged.)
The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred neighbor and competitive gods to be the nameless One Lord God of the Universe. For more on this tribal god, you can read
Who is this Jehovah and Where Does He Live?
What does this imply? It implies this: the Hebrew-Christian-One-God is a patent forgery and myth; a mythological Father-god can have no "only begotten Son"; Jesus Christ is a myth even before he is mythically born by the forged whimsy of the early Christian 'fathers'.
A Few Translations
These translations, while only three in number, will change your whole way of thinking about what is being presented in your Bible.
Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".
Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.
Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-of-a-kind". So where does 'begotten' come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means "to beget". Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.
Hopesome| 7.26.09 @ 3:35PM
Fraud by Jews.
What does one-of-a-kind then mean.
Someone who is not known to 'be' by any standards that we are privy to and therefore we have no language to describe.
When ministry, so called, portrays such a one they do so in 'mans' understanding and therefore we are left with the scraps from under their tables of little knowledge but great ability to waffle and earn a good dollar from something that would take 'one-of-a-kind to come and witness into their lies and man made interpretations to reveal.
Now the question is, is there such a one or do we have to 'put up' with the scraps of the preachers and ministry's so called miraculous shows of ever increasing profit making draw the crowds 'lakeland kind of bull. No ,for one-of-a-kind would not gift man in man or of man thats what they do.
You would know him most definately by your inability to describe how he comes and how he delivers us from captivity.
Words never seem to fail those that say they know him do they, and for the most part are delivered pro bono from a book that no one unless they are one-of-a-kind has the origin off.
We will be glorified sayeth mans interpretations
and as the bible can be interpreted to suit any and every we have it all sewn up. Any one who disagrees we shall say is persecuting us.
When one-of-a-kind comes you will be in no mistake. They are too proud even to admit one, or the possibility of one.
Richard Baker| 7.26.09 @ 4:03PM
For too many on these pages, copy/paste seems to be the extent of your cognitive processes. Try putting something, anything, in your own words. Is that possible?
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:59AM
Is it really true what they are saying? UTI Treatment