Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Are you a child of "God"? Part 5

So in my first few posts of this series I discussed the Albino characteristics, the RH factor, the blood types and the apparent "racist" conclusions of them all. . .  I next got into human origins according to the ancient texts that we have sought to discredit as myth, because it didn't make sense to our science of the time. I am here to encourage Christians (and any who see historical value in the ancient texts) that there is reality in the creation stories in the Bible, even if you have been misreading it. This isn't new though, all through the enlightenment we have had to change our reading of the Bible, realizing how it was coming from ignorance of the culture, or their ignorance of science and calling everything a "miracle."
In my last post I got into the history and culture from which the Bible came, and using the Apocrapha and other ancient texts, I gave a little light on some old words. Some words like: "God", touched on "Satan", "Angels", as well as Demons. That brought us to "Sons" or "children" of God or Heaven, I  then discussed some of the notoriously most difficult verses in the Bible, in Genesis 6. Let's quote it first:
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.

These verses will come alive even more in this post. . .
The fact that the "giants" (or Nephilim's) fathers were called "sons of god"(s), (as well as "Angels",) makes me wonder what their father(s) looked like? Were they tall too?
Ancient civilizations were all thought to have believed in "gods". Which, as they all came from the same word, out of the same ancient civilization that founded the rest, it seems logical that they were just passing down what they saw.
 "The Egyptians, Chaldeans, Mayans, Aztecs, Aryans, Syrians, and the inhabitants of the ancient Indian Tibet have all recorded the arrival of "gods from the heavens" in their ancient writing. Considering their similarities to the Bible, when you throw out the uneducated presumptions we've already dealt with, it seems we might get some clues from these other texts that predated the Bible even!
"The best place to get answers about who these gods were is probably from the oldest known records written by the oldest known civilization, the Sumerians. (Their culture dates back to 6000 BC!)
The Sumerians documented the arrival of "gods" who they called "ilu", from another world, who brought with them advanced knowledge." [Sounds like in Enoch. . .]
The Sumerians, as opposed to the later cultures were more descriptive of these "ilu", calling them the "Anunnaki" which translates into "Those who from Heaven to Earth Came."  Sound familiar? The Anunnaki were also known to play "god" roles and control civilizations through worship or "work for."
I believe there has been a simple misunderstanding about these "gods" of ancient cultures though, rooted in a mis-translation of the word used to describe what mainstream linguists say means "god".
While the word “ilu” has been commonly translated as “god" because it made the most sense to the ancient worldview, "ilu" has a different translation: "tall men."
Despite this overall acceptance of this "mistake" of translation by linguists, they continue to translate "ilu" to mean "gods," as any other meaning wouldn't have made sense to their worldview. . .until now.
Later, the Akkadian, Babylonians, and the Assyrian culture and language evolved from the Sumerian Civilization and brought with them the word "ilu". It is generally presumed that the "god" word of the Bible evolved from  both the word, and the god(s) that were passed down from those earlier texts and cultures.
The Akkadian cuneiform tablets speak extensively about the affairs of the "ilu" gods, and in every depiction/illustration where "ilu" and ordinary people are shown side by side the ilu are much taller. . ." So, we could presume that these "gods" could have easily have been the fathers (the "Angels" or "sons of God") that mated with the humans, creating giants in all the Ancient texts!
"The ancient stories tell us a lot about these "gods". . . The first humans could have been a result of manipulation with the gods’ genes and maybe other life forms here on Earth already.
Many stories in all the ancient texts, especially pre-Christian texts, tell about a race of gods that "from the Heavens to the Earth Came." And they "created man in their image". Looking back, these "gods" who all lived long lives (around 1,000 years) had superior knowledge and technology, performing apparent "miracles" would have certainly been looked on as gods. [Even though we believe it is better translated as tall men"] So it's really no surprise that the meaning morphed into a supernatural being. . .as they were intuitive, wise, advanced, and very different. . .
[These gods, according to the many texts were] "flying about in lighted ships in the sky [sometimes called flaming chariots] and shooting fire or lightning from them [on select occasions] , creating ear-shattering booms and temporary blindness." [Sometimes the flaming chariots even took people away, never to be seen again!]
The humans watched as these "gods" built massive and glorious houses and created beautiful cities for themselves. (Usually with help. . .)
Many questions have sprung up about who these original "ilu" were?
These "people" have been variously identified with just about every mythical being after them that you can imagine, leading most scholars to automatically place the whole texts they come from in the realm of myth or allegory. Interestingly though that all of these ancient creatures of myth were blond or red headed. . .so, based on my last posts, we can presume they were the original O- blooded Albinos, later "sons of god", or a hybrid breed of red and blond-haired gods.
Interestingly, these ilu or "gods" made creations that, though in their "image" and "good", were nonetheless shorter, less intelligent, less large boned, rounder head and apparently the males had a foreskin, whereas some believe the gods did not. So these creations were not sons of god, but a new creation, with genes that were unique to the planet. . .apparently.
The difference between the "ilu" and their creation was probably why the ancient civilizations started the practice of circumcising the male descendants. . .on the best day possible for blood clotting. Could it have been just to hide the fact that they were created "Sons of the gods" instead of true descendants like the Angels? Created, instead of creators.
Considering the violence and maybe even jealousy of the neighboring giant cultures seeking favor with god, it may have been a deceptive safety measure, hoping to confuse the "stupid" giants. . . because we sure haven't found genital mutilation to being of any other benefit. For a very interesting article on circumcision, check this out.
The mingling of the human species, with these sons of "tall men" (God) happened in other places too. . thus the different cultures' giants mating with women and creating demi-gods or partially "tall men." Thus, all these "myths" would have been all talking about the same thing as the Bible.
We could look at them all as myth then, as many Atheists do, or we could look to see what the ancients might have meant by what they were all said to have seen. . .Could "the Lord", or "gods", or the fathers of the "Angels" in every culture of the world have been just a depiction of the first ones on earth?
It seems with many ancient texts handing down rules for not intermarrying with other races, (better described as species, as seen in my last post) that some groups coming from the first human creations were taught so to keep their blood pure. Thus, they are still a separate people from the days of Noah.  Could they look like a somewhat tall, RH- O blood type, red and blond headed race of "people", like all the "gods"?
If all creation came from the mingled species of Angels and the created man in the image of God, it seems they both would have been equally the same color of the "tall men", white albinos. Like I talked about in my first post in this series.
As we can see in my next post in the series, the blood type that went with the original albinos was always O-. To this day, blood that is O or has the RH - factor would indicate some white in that person's ancestry. So, as stated earlier, since blood doesn't mutate, one could ask when the other blood types to make the darker races would have come in, if Adam and Eve were both the same color and in the image of the "gods"?
Creation scientists wisely admit to this discrepancy though, and say, I quote :" If Adam and Eve were heterozygous for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one allele for either type A or B), [I believe it would have to be both A and B, as blood cannot mutate] they could have produced children that had any of the ABO blood types."
Of course, they also say, "Adam wouldn't have been a white boy, having been created from the dust of the earth/ground. Eve on the other hand, being created from his rib, would have been pale since that would be the shade afforded bone from which she was derived."
Source: Institution for creation research
That is a hilarious reasoning! And this concession has only been recently admitted to. . . their previous theory stated that Adam and Eve were light brown! So if the people separated nicely into slightly different shades over the years, and did that numerous times (apparently moving away after a while), then our presumptuous understanding of the Bible could be accurate. I think there is a lot easier of an explanation though. . .  but as usual, the Bible won't change, the reading of it does. So Christians should have no problem with this info, right?

The Creation science people have almost figured it out!  Look at this quote from the same place: "The deletion responsible for converting an A allele to an O allele is not present in chimpanzees, and sequence comparisons between humans and chimps indicate this allele is unique to the human lineage, further complicating an evolutionary scenario for the origin of blood type O. This scenario would fit better if the O allele was rare in the population today and appeared in a specific people group. [It use to be, but with interbreeding it is recessive in a lot of white groups around the world.] However, the O allele is by far the most common allele globally, indicating that if it did originate via a mutational event, it had to occur when the human population was extremely small and before humans divided into ethnic groups and spread across the globe. . .If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event [blood has proven the least likely part of the body to be able to mutate] that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins."
" For one thing, for a husband and wife to pass on all alleles to their children, they need to, between them, have the A, B, and O alleles. So Adam and Eve could have had any of the following genetic make-ups: AO and BO, AB and OO, AB and AO, AB and BO, AA and BO or BB and AO, that is, any combination where both parents have all three alleles between them. Another possibility is that the O gene arose later."
Source: Institution for creation research
A genetically manipulated  part-"god" ("tall man") species, with O- blood being  created and commemorated in the many creation stories is the most logical explanation of the numerous creation stories I can think of. With man's bestiality bringing in the A and B blood later.
How could I insinuate such a derogatory thing as bestiality causing the origin of the dark skinned people?? Well, from the Start, it seemed that the "tall men" or gods encouraged it! Parading the newly made animals in front of a desperate and lonely man, no doubt hoping one of them would be a good mate for him, saving themselves the trouble of cloning another person from his  bone marrow (rib), and changing it a little to make a female.  I mean, seriously! How many animals did he have to "try out" first before he and the "gods" agreed that he needed a mate  like him?
By going up to one of  "the mountains of God", Moses eventually got instructions from the "tall men" to condemn bestiality, consequently discouraging the creation of all the hybrid men. . .the "mythical" half men, half horses, or half man, half monkey. . .?
Or was it Solomon's  many "Strange" wives, that were "his undoing". . .? And the "undoing" of the whole nation that soon divided "God's chosen people" from the nation of Judah. Whatever the case, it seemed from the perspective of one of the writers of the Bible, that it was an intentional action of the "tall men" to mix up the genes of some of the tribes of the original Israelite nation.
The Bible gives reference to this in Jeremiah 31:27. "Behold the days come saith the Lord, I will SOW (mingle) the House of Israel and the House of Judah with the SEED (offspring) of man and the SEED (offspring) of beast (rh+). " The difference to this day between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah is the Rh- blood.
And when the Bible says "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats."  (Matthew 25:31-32) It could be in reference to a physical "End time" separation of the whites from the blacks, O blood types from the A's and B's or more likely, the RH-'s from the RH+. . .  I don't know which.  Could it be more in reference to an obvious cultural and mental separation of the species that we have done ourselves? Could the intention of the Rh- white elites with their pushing of religion, vaccines, fluoride, GMO's, BPA's, drugs and dangerous medical, as well as a pathetic educational system, simply be for the purpose of depopulating the less dominant group, as they did in the Bible days to the stupid experimental giants?
Of course the "Angels" giant descendants were partially wiped out in the flood, and the rest of them were said to be "polished off" by the Israelites. But if the elites realize that we know the giants were real, and we demanded to see their hidden away remains, allowing us to trace their  blood type and DNA, we would likely find a connection even now with all the elites.
Are they intending to make that clear divide still today, as they fought so hard to back then, and with all the RH- leaders of the past? Could they be trying to separate the stupid from the smart, the sheep of Israel from the goats of the Gentiles, so to speak, so they will know who are their descendants, the true "children of God"?  The elite know the thinking person will eventually all opt out of religions, vaccines, fluoride, GMO's, BPA's, drugs and dangerous medical practices, as well as a pathetic educational system, as they mostly do so themselves, from what I've heard.
It seems, that keeping the masses believing in "God" though, (as they have either intentionally or naively redefined him through mis-translations) helps those in power retain their power. Just like all the other methods of control the elite use on the gullible masses in the US, religion is a method of control that they don't themselves have much use for. . .or have you not noticed that the countries of Europe, with the highest population of the best minds (Rh-) being the direct descendants of the redheads and blonds themselves, are happily living in Atheism. In fact, by 1970, all 22 of the nations of central and eastern Europe which were effectively atheistic!

They are showing their superior IQ, as is obvious by the last post. And they are leaders because of it! To rebel only shows you misunderstand their intentions, or are judging them as stupid as the majority. They aren't! They not only know what they are doing, in giving the masses the illusion of  a democracy, but they are given that power by the "tall men" themselves!

As is obvious in JOB 36:7 , "He [God] doth establish them [Kings on the throne] for ever, and they are exalted." So, as there seems no use in fighting them, as we are out-brained, and out-gunned in every way from the beginning of time as demi-gods at best, while they (O- or RH-'s) are pure blooded sons of gods we might as well join them and admit that if you are white, o blooded, or RH-, that you are a "child of God" and from the same family. At least I know I am. And I never thought an Atheist would say that she's a CHILD OF GOD!

To be continued. . . in "The Origin of the Aryan race part 6."


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.