Origins of "God", man, and the location of the original Garden of Eden? Part 13

Where did the "ancient aliens" that later became known as the gods of all the world's religions (said to have seeded earth) come from?


It seems that they came from "the heavens" or the sky, as all the myths agree, but did they really create man or even life on this planet, as the myths all allude to? Well, there is evidence now that life on this planet is older then the planet itself, (very interesting article) so it is becoming quite obvious, if it wasn't already, that the theory of the ancient aliens is well supported. As if that wasn't enough though, DNA, (specifically the RH- blood of the gods) history of the kingly bloodline, archaeology, (though some of it has been hidden), religion/rituals, (as discussed in my last post:  How worship and church rituals started. Part 12)
 linguistics, etc. all support the theory as well.

Just because humans on this planet were seeded by aliens from another planet though it doesn't discount evolution as a whole; I have not suddenly reverted back to my creationist days and believe that the world was created in 6 days, and is no older then 7 thousand years old! As scientists all agree though, micro evolution is a fact. We know that all life could have possibly evolved at one time or another, since the "big bang", if their environment demanded the changes.

The intelligence, (large heads; higher IQ) culture and advanced technology that the aliens brought to our planet though. . . as well as the RH-, white skin (which has not evolved because of more of a need for vitamin D as some would like to tell us) and sensitive blue or green/clear eyes shows that our planet was not the likely origin of the children of the god's/white man's evolution.

While cave living could have produced the big blue eyes, and white skin theoretically, no logical need or amount of time would have ever produced the RH- on this planet from what I can see. Blood would have no cause or ability to mutate anymore in the future then it does now. . .and the only time it does now is with a transfusion of an impure blood to a pure.

More then likely, O- was the only bloodtype for "humans" on another planet that was perhaps much older. Had the humans there trashed it, as they had in the movie Wall.e and came to Earth because they wanted to find a new home? Or did they simply see a catastrophe coming with a collision from a comet?

Speaking of cave living though, there is no doubt that the "caveman"/ape was within the realm of possibility on this planet, but it had a different blood type and RH factor. As we have no evidence of the pure bloodline/creation/children of the gods ever coming from the ape, (based on the pure blood of some of the Jews, the kings and even pharaohs) it seems highly unlikely that we share an evolution alongside the ape on this planet. . .unless from genetic splicing of two species, implanted into the womb that had our RH- blood.

As a matter of fact, the genes of the ape are so distant from that of the Neanderthal that they think they were completely separate lines. Yet, there is a definite connection to Europeans. . .not surprising since the Neanderthals had red hair, white skin, and large heads/intelligence, as well as the first sign of culture, long life, fire, tools. Maybe that's because they were the first actual humans, and the rest were simply apes/gorillas/monkeys, as the creationists clearly think.
Source

                              Other theories out there:
Some think that human life could have evolved separately, but still from earth.  They speculate that maybe some of the most advanced people went away in space ships to a more distant and cold planet, to live underground for a time. Thus leaving the less fortunate people to stay on earth marooned and helpless without the advanced knowledge and technology of the elite. With these people left in solitude to live like animals, it is thought that eventually they would start evolving backwards to suit their primitive environment. . . thus we would have the dark cultures of Africa, and much of the world before the interbreeding with the white's came in. But again, a major issue with this theory is, where did the white people's bloodtype of O- originally come from?!

 Another theory is that maybe some of Earth's future people made a time machine to go back in time. Through interbreeding or manipulating genes they encouraged evolution to speed up considerably from the apes, as we can see it did at the basic time of the Neanderthals. . . Unfortunately for this theory, the top physicist Stephen Hawkins says that there is little chance of ever making technology to take us back in time. A machine to take us slightly ahead in time has possibility, but back in time is full of issues. Let's just forget that little detail though. . .we still have to ask again, where did the different looks and blood come from if it couldn't have evolved here originally?

The most plausible explanation for the looks and the unearthly bloodtype to go with it, is that the aliens came from an outer body in our solar system, just like the Sumerian text tells us they did. (The 10th planet, which has since been reduced to an asteroid belt.) Another possibility is that they came from beyond our solar system and then suffered dire technological setbacks due to an unforeseen catastrophe and had to rebuild their technology using only the materials of Earth. Ancient Egypt shows evidence of their use of a three stage rocket. . .
(source)
 which would indicate that their technology at that time was insufficient to navigate very far. . . but that is not an issue, as all the planets would have been considerably closer back when they came to Earth.


The real question though isn't where the gods (who were the basis of all the myths) came from, but where did they go. . .or have they? Did they survive, and if so, are they still watching over their creation/children/chosen people? Do they interact with and help them, answering their children's prayers. Or are they attempting to moderate their rule of the world? (As the elite bloodline has always been the controlling class, in every country of the world.)

It is said that:
"They interact with man through their dreams and in riddles, seeming to prefer inspiring from behind the scenes to any kind of direct communication. When overt contact is necessary, they assume the guise of the Virgin Mary, the Corn Mother, angels, kachinas, or whatever is appropriate for that culture. There is a strong circumstantial evidence for this race's continual intervention on a number of levels in man's development - from the crudely physical to the artistic, scientific and esoteric. They cover their tracks by using hypnosis or some unknown technology capable of clouding the memories of their visitants."

"It would seem that the 'off world' visitors reason for being here are little known at this time. It does seem that there is no hostile intent, being that if there were , we would have known it by now.
We can base this on their actions - They evade when pursued, fire only when fired upon, and despite unquestionable superiority do not exploit their advantage in any discernible attempt for
invasion or conquest. They are plainly 'unfriendly' towards military buildup and are monitoring our industrial and military capacity ."

"We do have abductions and contacts. One of the purposes of contact seem to be to establish ambassadors between us and them, the indications being that the 'offworlders' are in the process of gradually preparing our world for a more open relationship with them. Surgery of the abductees seem to be to assist the reproduction program."

It seems there is much evidence from eye witness accounts of the aliens (as many pictures and witnesses testifying of the aliens as there are of Africa existing. . . yet if you have never been there, you could be just as skeptical of either's existence.) and of their ability to get around in flying saucers.

 There is much evidence also of their desire to contact some people at least. The ability to see and hear them though has notoriously been linked with the pure RH- bloodline, or those closest to the bloodline. Ironically, this ability has often been confused with seeing Angels/ Jesus and hearing "God's voice", or seeing a prophetic vision, which is probably why the people that are the most psychic are often highly religious, unless they become aware that the spirits they see or hear are the "dead" or waiting spirits of the alien creations and not their religious figures. . .although in most cases, they are one and the same.

 With all the evidence for "ghosts", psychic powers, flying saucers, and aliens (at least the ones that are green and odd looking, and probably a slave creation of the blond and red headed gods made to spy on us,) why don't the creators of the original humans make their presence more widely known if they are still around? And why, with their advanced technology, don't they take over and fix the mess some of their creation has made of the world? Are they too far away to care anymore?

The myths consistently mention a place that they were said to walk with man in. It was "the Garden of Eden" in the Bible and "the Garden of the gods" in the Sumarian text. Scholars originally believed there was an original lower Eden, as well as a higher Eden. . .as I discussed in my post: The reality of Heaven and Hell in history, part 9 There we concluded that the higher or upper Eden was not the original, and was none other then the mythical Atlantis! We did not discuss the original lower Eden though. . .
                                    
I propose though that the original cradle of civilization or the "lower" Eden though would be a good starting place to finding the original gods again. . .but every biblical scholar that I'm aware of has speculated that all it's mentioned landmarks were lost in the flood, and we have no idea where it is! (Other then an "Angel" is said to be guarding it's entrance. . .)

  Well, let's go back first and talk about this supposed global flood that was said to have brought about it's destruction, since many both Atheists and Christians will say that the flood was simply a myth.

  As far as we can tell, as I discussed in detail in my post: The reality of Heaven and Hell in history part 9, the "Upper" Garden of the gods or garden of Eden/ paradise (otherwise known as Atlantis) was destroyed by "a cataclysm" (with a sudden rise in tide or quite possibly a global flood). This seems a likely connection to the worldwide myths of the flood connected to the wrong Eden though. . . so let's check it out.


 In the ancient texts, the "kings, of great and marvelous power" of Atlantis, (some later known as "gods") were said to have had warning of this catastrophe, and/or somehow have even caused this by bringing a humongous spaceship into orbit. (What we call our moon today. Many say the race to the moon was about seeing junked or crashed alien gear on it's surface. If not though, why was their landing spot right by the spot that had the suspicious signs of past civilizations? And why did the public radio go fuzzy as they went to explore? If you watched the movie transformers, it may be a likely depiction of what really happened on the moon. . .)

It seems that at least many of these gods may have abandoned their city for a safer location like the space ship. . .leaving animals, birds, and reptiles, as well as their genetically modified human creation and the "son's of god"/half men, half Angels/giants to be destroyed.

According to a few of the myths though, (some of the) god(s) deeply regretted the mess they had made with the creation of man (mainly because man became interbred with Angels (as we see in many of the ancient texts including the Bible) and the surrounding dark skinned "nations" and wanted them-or were content to let them-to be all wiped out with the coming disaster.

There are many cultural myths around the world that include one of the ancient aliens/gods taking pity and warning a favorite of his of the coming doom though (the Bible puts it this way, he "found favor"). This man according to the Bible, was a pureblooded man, ( the Bible puts it this way, "pure in his generations") which, according to the evidence shown in my previous posts, seems to have been the bloodtype of O-.

 Noah was the lucky man's name. . . in one language, but there is evidence that there were either many names for him and his family, or that the gods each had their favorite creation that they saved alive to seed a separate part of the world.  The myths may have developed as being different groups of families alone because they believed themselves to be the only ones saved.

They simply may not have ever met up after the continental drift that was likely started or sped up by the flood, as the Bible spoke of fountains of the deep being opened up. And so the survivers future relatives never knew of others, and only wrote about their own histories in their later books. As these books were first totally dependent on the oral traditions, human nature would not be concerned with a family heritage not their own, so it seems very likely that the other groups in other boats, (even if originally known about) would have been dropped from the history of their people in time.

Besides the evidence of different cultures having different named people, and different family groups all making boats to be saved from the coming flood in their myths, there is more that makes me suspect this theory. The god(s), being historically very knowledgeable in boating, helped their favorite children build something to survive the expected flood. Later, with this knowledge of sailing, it is said that the ancestors of the people saved, emigrated anywhere boats could take them.

"According to the ancient Lhasa Records, among many others manuscripts, the Muvians [apparent ancestors of the people from Atlantis] were great navigators and sailed all over the world - much as the Atlanteans are purported to have done and later the Phoenicians also. They were also reputed to have been great builders, too ... another thing the people of Mu had in common with the Atlanteans and later Israelites. . ."

Source

(Also the Egyptians, and later the blond Nordic gods/vikings. . .)

"When this blonde haired/red haired, blue eyed race survived the Atlantean/Mu cataclysm they emigrated to the distant Occident in their ships — under the guidance of admirals like Aeneas, Hercules, Phoroneos, and Hu Gadarn and, perhaps, Noah, Canopus and Jason — they settled in colonies along the way, on every coast and every island that looked promising."

The legends of the great flood and it's survivors are certainly founded in actual facts, or the stories wouldn't be found all around the world! Check out flood myths and you will see all the similarities.

 source

After the disaster/flood which sunk the god's paradise civilization, or the "Upper" Eden (Atlantis) the gods seemed to have either mostly died or wisely moved on to a safer location. . .but some apparently stayed and moved into cities in the mountains. Actually, maybe all the land they or their pure blooded creation (who were often called gods or sons of gods themselves) landed on originally only became a mountain as the water receded, after the flood. . .but before the flood it may have been flat ground. Actually the Bible says about as much. 

Consider Psalm 104:5-9. Giving the gods praise wrote: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You did establish for them. You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earth."

There is actually a lot of evidence for their being almost nothing for mountains the further back you go, but I'll get into that later. . .Whatever the case, if the mountains hardly existed, and the oceans weren't deep, the statement that the flood covered the highest mountain suddenly becomes plausible. It may explain away one of the best rebuttals for why the flood couldn't have been global; it is said that there wasn't enough water on earth to cover the mountains of today, much less in how short of a time it took. Mind you, the Bible speaks of the "fountains of the deep being opened up", not just rain causing the flood. . .

Interestingly, core samples of the different elevations on the globe all tell a clear tale; the oldest land is the tops of the mountains, and it gets progressively younger as you go down towards the oceans. We also see many extinct sea life fossilized high up on mountaintops, either suggesting the mountains were low, or the oceans were very high. 

"I am told that prior to the theories of Charles Darwin, most educated men explained the vast quantities of fossils as evidence of the global Flood from the days of Noah. In spite of what you may have heard elsewhere, animals and plants decay rapidly under normal circumstances, rarely leaving any trace for very long that they ever even existed on the planet. The mechanism for creating fossils requires unusual circumstances where an organism is buried before it can be eaten by other animals and bacteria. It is my opinion that the fossil record and sedimentary layers are best explained by a worldwide Flood."
Source

 So logically then the first survivors of the flood would have lived on the mountains, either before the water receded  or the mountains grew. . . The mountains ironically continue to do today by the way, even accounting for erosion! All of them. . . Which is easily explained by what I will discuss in a later post. . .

The Bible again confirms the mountain residences with Noah landing on what was later known as Mt. Ararat. To further confirm this hypothesis, mountain residences were mentioned in many different legends. In the Bible the mountain(s) of "God" is spoken of in many places. So we know that is where the gods (at least some of them) went for a time, but we no longer see them on the mountain tops. Though in many parts of the world temples still exist to worship them there.

So where did they go? Perhaps they returned to the original cradle of civilization, the "lower" Eden, that has nothing apparently to do with the destroyed upper Eden of Atlantis. Where could that be though, if it's landmarks cannot be excused away by the flood destroying it, and we see it as nowhere else on Earth?!

Here's a crazy thought, maybe the original Eden was literally "lower" then Atlantis, and in a hollow Earth! "How could there be a hollow earth you say? Scientists have long ago disproved that archaic thought, right?" Well, as this post is too long already, I think I will leave that for another post. . .so stay tuned for: Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14

How worship and church rituals started. Part 12

    How did worship and church rituals start? Well,
If you are just getting into this series, this may not all make sense to you, and I would suggest you check out at least some or preferably all of my gamechanging posts below before throwing out some of my terminology and speculations. . .
 The difference in our blood and what it means, part 3

An Atheist admits that the Biblical accounts of origins have their base in truth. Part 4

Are you a child of "God"? Part 5

The origin of the Aryan race. Part 6

The white royals of history were all "sons of the tall men" Part 7

Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10

In the start, the mostly pure blooded creation of the white alien people were for the most part honoring their ancestors, like is still done in the most ancient civilizations of China and Mexico from the time of the Incas "Day of the dead".

 As the family exclusiveness, and pride in their heritage grew though, they surely became a curiosity, and a point of jealousy, as secret societies do now. The origin was most certainly a family group though, and just like the exclusive groups and cults of today, you can trace their roots back to a family group tied to the alien seeded bloodline. . .as I discussed in length in the earlier posts in this series on the aliens.

These groups are very exclusive in their worship and rites of passage. Adding to their exclusiveness, most of them teach to only marry of "their kind". Was that simply because of "racism", infertility issues with interbreeding with other races, or was there a deeper reason?

Some say that the original "Aryan overlords" because of their "blue blood" causing them anemia and thus deal poorly with blood loss in childbirth,  needed blood on a regular basis. (The RH- and/or the red and blond haired people are more prone to suffer ill effects from bloodloss in childbirth still today I'm told by Midwives, and wise Midwives prescribe chlorophyll and/or liquid iron for a blood builder-instead of supplemental blood as they use to use- as a preventative.)

This supplemental blood would preferably come from their own people if they didn't want to change their bloodtype and thus lose some of their "powers". Even an infusion of a small amount of "impure" A or B blood or combinations, or the + factor that went with it would cause the whole body to revert over to that blood type they say, which is why some claim that bloodtype is able to change, but never back to the pure RH-. I don't know, but that effect  may not be the same when eating it as it is for injecting it with a transfusion. . .for whatever reason though, the Israelites insisted that their meat be drained of it's blood, and well cooked before eating it. Maybe the reason was to keep their blood pure RH-? If so, something so small as eating a rare steak could have depleted those of the bloodline of their "godly heritage".
Obviously if this conjecture is accurate, the pure blooded creation would have had to be very careful, and a lot would have died before figuring out that they needed to share blood with each other. How did they do this without without syringes you ask? They could have gone about bleeding or killing their own for that needed blood, ("the life is in the blood, as the Bible says.") but thankfully the original white "sons of god's" had a simpler and nicer way of acquiring this necessary life and power giving fluid. . .

The original ancestor-gods, the Anunnaki, had endocrine systems that produced large amounts of beneficial substances in their blood, so at the beginning their children ingested it in the most harmless (if disgusting) form: the menstrual blood and vaginal fluids of the virgin goddesses themselves! The literal blood of the gods. (Later they changed in desperation to any virgin of their bloodline.)  This they drunk in a ritual ceremony called the "Black Mass".


Together with a few other choice ingredients, this blood made "The Elixir of Life" , said to be " the true Key to Magic."
Source



The Catholic "Mass" is said to have been  made into a "sanitized" version of this ritual for the masses. The Catholic church seemed to have started as a rival group to the true bloodline, from what I can tell; they were not the true royal bloodline. (To my knowledge.) It wouldn't make sense that they were, as they were always the ones to demonize and destroy the later purified bloodline of the alien creation, (especially by the time of Jesus, and the dark ages). They were responsible for the later labeling of the true bloodline as "witches" and "heretics". The royal bloodline was at one point believed to be the Druids from the historic Dragon court. Another secret elite group that you could only join because of your family tree.

 The Catholic church long ago denied the druids of their pre-christian roots, and blood connection to Christ himself, instead making their own counterfeit group that allowed in everyone. Telling them that if they couldn't achieve the spirituality, wealth, or miraculous healings that the historical Druids/ kings and queens and even pharaoh/ gods were famous for, that they needed magical rocks, crystals, beads, or more faith in their patron saints or god to achieve that magic. Of course, it was a deception for the profit of a few that were privy to the knowledge of the real bloodline's source of powers; probably the popes.

With the continual witch hunts, and persecution, the saintly and peaceful druids/witches, or the original (Anabaptist?) Christians, (descended from Jesus himself) lost the ancient knowledge and arts, and their "magic" became lost in customs and rituals that their leaderless scattered family group came to think of as powered by "God". (Not the spirit or blood that they all shared, or the thoughts or energy they put out for eachother in their "prayers" or chants.)

 Without direct contact with many of their own kind for support, teaching, and supplemental and healing blood though, (that blood from those sacred priestesses they referred to as "Scarlet Women," or "Grail Maidens" in particular) many of the true bloodline became very unaware of their power and became seen as just average. Even the original druids, taught to do a ritualistic "communion" of human blood, found that ingesting the fluids of average inbred women didn't give more then a slight effect. . .and the custom became less popular.

So eventually, lacking enough pure blood of their people, the pure bloodline (desperately seeking to keep or restore their powers) were said to have resorted to vampirism.

Vampirisim was originally the purview of a few noble families who practiced it in order to maintain their powers. Vampire blood drinkers seem to all be convinced that the “life is in the blood.”(Sound familiar to the Bible thumpers out there?) As the lifespan of the original Annanaki gods was  up to 1,000 years on earth, it stands to reason that the more of their blood their creation (with their blood) could ingest, the longer they would be able to live.

When we think of famous vampires like Dracula, Bathory and de Rais, we would like to see them as either myth, or horrible villains, but history tells a very different picture to those willing to actually look at the facts. The commoners fear of Dracula for instance, was not his treatment of enemies or his own family even, but actually his in-depth knowledge of alchemy, kingship and the ancient "bloodthirsty" customs in which he partook with his family. Of course the wealth, apparent magical powers and the secrecy about the Dracula family added to the fear of the unknown.
Source
Source 

Did the fabled human "vampires" really suck blood from anyone? Or were they just compared to the local vampire bat because they were simply drinking the menstrual fluids of maybe their own family members? Being quite possibly compared to the only animal the people of the area knew to drink blood, (the vampire bat) the story may have grown from there. Who knows for sure, but. . . that is a classic way that stories grow from truth to myth.

Getting back to the blood of the pureblooded virgins though; according to the evidence we know now of the secret societies, there is some interesting science behind the blood. The original "virgins of High Birth and Pure Blood, at an optimum age would be chosen to act as feeding females. . . whose essences contained such valuable substances as, "oxytocin, prolactin, melatonin, seratonin, adenosyne triphosphate, dopamine, telomerase, and retinol."

Melatonin seems to possess some sensitivity to light , since it's production increases when the person is exposed to darkness (thus melatonin means "night worker!") Could this indicate that the powerful and spiritual alien blood (or perhaps the so called "junk DNA" that makes up as much as 98% of some of our DNA) is activated by darkness? And could that be why the Draculas were associated with doing their business in the dark?

"Melatonin in particular is known to be associated with a high immune system, a low cancer risk, long life, energy, stamina, and according to many, enhanced spiritual awareness."

"Writes Laurence Gardner:
High melatonin production thereby increases the facility for receiving and transmitting high-frequency cosmic and local broadcasts, and leads to a greater state of cosmic awareness - a state simply of ’knowing.’

  "Perhaps it is fitting then that this hormone, in addition to being in the blood of the grail maidens, is secreted by the pineal gland, a mysterious little gland long believed by mystics to be the "Seat of the Soul," The "Third Eye," and the organ through which psychic powers are exercised. I discussed this organ and it's history and symbolism down through the ages, (as well as the modern drug used by the elite to render it useless) in much more detail here in my post "good vibrations."

Many of the ancient magical rites are aimed at gaining control of the pineal gland. (Eating it, and/or the fluid it produces: the live melatonin.) Unfortunately, when the bloodline became scarce, out of desperation for the blood of the virgins, the pure bloodline needed a substitute. They found the live human pineal gland to be the best source of the hormones they needed.

 "hormonal levels [are] influenced by genetic inheritance and that hormones [affect] the individual’s perceptions, psychological unicameralism and the subsequent ability to transcend and perceive the intricacies of the cosmos."

de vere

Historically the rites of the elite involve the consumption of the live pineal gland of a human in order to get the fresh secretions. Rumor has it that the members of the secret society Skull & Bones, to which both George Bush and his son belong, engage in a ceremony called "The Obscene Rite," which involves the consumption of the live pineal gland of a human (or other mammal that has one. . .) sacrifice in order to get the fresh secretions.
Source

 Supplements for these numerous hormones that are bought over the counter are ineffective because, "their inherent secretions are obtained from the desiccated glands of dead animals and they lack the truly important elements which only exist in live human glandular manufacture." Could this be the real reason the original elite of the Israelites needed so many freshly sacrificed animals?

The gods were believed to be eternal by many accounts, or at least live for a thousand years on this planet, as long as they had the "elixir of life" or as was sometimes called "Starfire" . . . Their creation that was "pure in their generations" (before, and including, Noah that is) were also said to live to near 1000 years, but even though the gods creation was made in the "tall men's" image, they were "mortal". After the flood the gods said that they would live no longer then 120 years according to the Bible.  "And the LORD said , My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh [mortal] : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
Genesis 6:3

Some believe that the original gods or their direct ancestors are still alive and presiding over human affairs from afar. If so, where are they? This we will get into in a future post. . .

Are God and Satan really one and the same as some say. . .? Part 11

 Many Atheists or Satanists would claim that God and Satan are the same, leading many Christians to be offended unnecessarily. As always, I seek to find a middle ground and look at the issue from both sides, and as historically as I can, because I have been there and understand how blindsided you can be when you want to believe something that everyone else does.

Christians need to know a few things though. You cannot fight your "spiritual battles" against "the lies of Satan" by burying your head in the sand and not learning about the opposition's argument least you come "under the spell" of it. You need to be able to ":study to show thyself approved unto God", right? So here are some key verses that are used to "prove" Satan and God are one, to the mind of many non-religious people:
  

"AND Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (I Chronicles 21:1)

"AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (II Samuel 24:1)

Now my rebuttal: This discrepancy can be explained, not in the typical way that all the rest of the numerous names for God are, (as discussed in my last post: Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10) but by a proper understanding of the original language and the history of Satan.

The term satan is used when someone plays the role of an adversary, or judge. This word was always in reference to the role, whether it was used in place of a spiritual being or human.

Just as often as it was used for a spiritual being though, satan is used as referring to the actions of a human adversary in the Old Testament. Examples of this use of satan, with their proper translation of "adversary" in the English are:

• Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
• 32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
• 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
• 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
• 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
• 1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"
• 1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
• 25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"

In the case of the first mentioned verses, (that seem to confuse God and Satan) God is simply being a satan, but cannot be the Satan. . .

At the time of the writing and compiling of the New Testament, an emerging idealism about God being perfect, all powerful, and being able to control everything, was coming up against much criticism. . . because as Christian people struggle with today, that idea obviously doesn't fit with our imperfect, chaotic world, where bad things happen to good people. So the ancients had to make peace with that contradiction in some way.

 So in-between the time of the writing of the Old and New Testament an idea evolved. It started with a verb, and by the time the canon was formed, powerful people had made it into a noun. Turning a term into a title,  "a satan" became "THE SATAN". A previously unheard of character came into being.

If you were to go with the thought that Satan was still real, and not made up in necessity because of a bad doctrine about God to start with, you will want to hear all about why he was in the form of a serpent in the Garden, the one who tormented Job, and the angel who fell from Heaven and was previously called Lucifer, because surely those are proof that there was a real character who was while being a satan, also was Satan. So, then let's look at the origin of those thoughts and verses. . .

So, was Satan in the Garden as a serpent? 

No other animal within ancient civilizations was more prominent or as important... than the SNAKE. The snake is just one among many other symbols of the Brotherhood. The snake is also a symbol used within Freemasonry. These may lead some to think Devil worship or cults, but they are actually the bloodline from the gods of old. So if anything, snakes would be an idol similar to the statues of Jesus and Mary that the Catholics venerate. . . that can also be traced back to more ancient symbolism representing what some would think of as pagan gods. . .

If anything, the snake was used as a symbol for health, healing, or sometimes the spine. This is still seen today in old symbols for healthcare. In no case that I am aware of does the snake show up as anything but a symbol or allegory in the ancient times, even though it is seen often, and usually with a stick or tree.

If it was talking about a real snake, being possessed by Satan, this would be a first. . .but we'll just look at the evidence for that now.

 In Genesis 3:14 we read:

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
As you can see, only the Serpent is cursed for his trickery to Eve. . .and Satan seems to get off almost Scott free! The serpent has to crawl on it's belly forever and "eat dust". Metaphorically of course.. that is, his proximity is so close to the ground that dirt cannot help but get into his mouth. I think it's fair to call this one a metaphor.

So when the snake was cursed it is presumed by Christians that it is a just punishment from God, and a sensible one too. . .and yet, the only logical thought about Satan being the serpent, is that he simply possessed the innocent serpent. So any punishment for a poor dumb animal seems harsh and pointless!

 If on the other hand, one Snake was suppose to embody Satan for all time, the punishment may have been somewhat appropriate for his descendants  . .yet we know that isn't the case, because after the curse we see that Satan isn't later crawling around on his belly forever.
We read in Job 1:7:"
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

So, did the Bible make a mistake? Or is something sounding fishy? Oh, but the rest of the curse was for Satan no doubt, and his partner in crime was just getting a "slap on the wrist" to be without any appendages. . .
The next part of the curse goes like this:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

So let's just say that I wasn't desperately looking backwards hundreds of years to justify my present belief, and wishfully thinking about Jesus being the salvation from oppression. . .would any logical reading of that even hint to a savior? It makes a lot more sense to read it straight and see that it is right. Woman, and humans in general hate snakes, and when a snake goes around biting heels, humans crush their heads in return. There may be a deeper meaning I'm not aware of, but one thing I'm sure of, and that is that the Christians prediction of Jesus dying to crush satan's head in those verses has no bearing in reality.

Of course, these aren't the only verses in the Bible about Satan that are associated with a snake, or vise versa, there are quite a number of places that associate the snake as Satan. We do know however that when the new testament came along, the writers injected their own culture's ideas about what they thought they were reading in the Old Testament, and brought their own biases and agendas into their writings as well.

 Many religious folks today simply assume that the serpent is Satan, without much investigation. It truly doesn't add up. I challenge those that are skeptical: DON'T take my word for it, study it out for yourself! It will simply blow you away at how much your church simply isn't telling you. In fact, they can't. Most of them don't know either. 

Source

                  What about the verses about Satan in Job?
 We read in Job that satan is a member of the Divine Council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is actually seen to be charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. He is not cast down from Heaven, or rejected, as he was going back and forth regularly, and on good speaking terms with "God" and a council of gods. . .of which he was a part.

 So, while this particular god/Angel in the original story was certainly put in a position of A satan, he didn't fit the bill for THE Satan which followed in the New Testament. Anymore then the real St. Nicholas would fit with the conjured up new version of Santa Claus. This "god" or Angel went through an evolution that was similar. Thanks in part to the association of Satan with Lucifer. . .

             So let's discuss where the term Lucifer came from. . .

The name Lucifer (commonly believed to be another name for Satan) means light bearer, or morning star, as seen in this verse: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer to the ground..." (Isaiah 14:12)

John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains about the historical Lucifer:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else. The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript? In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

In a modern translation from the original Hebrew, the context of the passage in which the phrase "Lucifer" or "morning star" occurs begins with the statement: "On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!" After describing the death of the king, the taunt continues:

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. (The origin of "the pit" for "Hell") Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"

J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man. (who may have evolved into a god in mythology as all the rest of the ancient aliens though mind you. . .)


For the unnamed "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed. They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began, or Nabonidus, and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers. (The elite bloodline perhaps?)


In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the original name given to the "morning star" (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). In Babylonian mythology numerous "myths" were connected to this story, some of which involve Ishtar, who is also like Baal associated with Venus. Perhaps the many deities were all associated with Venus because they came from there originally? Whatever the case though, we know now that the King James version of the story is simply a fragmented, made up invention of a fallen Angel, and not from the more original Hebrew account.

The concept of a powerful and wicked Angel thrown out of Heaven, and wishing to overtake the throne was apparently still a new thought, and the translators, wishing to expand on that doctrine, (as it only makes sense when you have the doctrine of an Omnipotent and good God) took this opportunity to demonize and embellish on the newly realized and personified "Satan" with the story of a king of the past. 

Even the early church authorities knew about the mistranslation and invention though. For instance, John Calvin said: “The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.” Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil, but advocates of the "King James only" silenced both of their voices.

The association of Isaiah 14:12-15 then with "the Devil" had actually developed in the period between the writing of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and was very instrumental in the writing of other later New testament texts. . . As an example, it is commonly believed that the "War in Heaven" theme of Revelation, in which the dragon "who is called the devil and Satan … was thrown down to the earth", derives from the passage in Isaiah 14. It is the only book to also mention the connection of Satan with the serpent in the garden. By the time of the writing of Revelation, the belief in an evil deity was fully realized, and soon after the affects of that belief were made manifest in the inquisition, the witch hunts and even the crusades, in the era known as the dark ages. One of the hallmarks of the enlightenment that followed though was a much lessened belief in Satan. He became a joke for a time, and even a sexual hero for a while too!

Source

Interestingly, the Bible reveals this same "Bright and morning star" title of Lucifer for Jesus throughout it's pages as well. One of which is here: "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." Rev. 22:16 It seems that this is also a key point for Atheists wishing to prove that Jesus and Satan are one and the same. As I mentioned before though, not only was Lucifer a Babylonian king, and no Satan, but the term was associated with Venus, and many gods from that same bloodline would have inevitably been associated with Venus because of their tie with it in the ancient past. (Presuming you already know of the Ancient alien evidence, discussed in my previous posts of this series.) Jesus was most likely no average man, and was a direct, (probably genetically modified and implanted) seed of the pure alien creation bloodline into Mary. Which would make him become associated with Venus, just as his predecessor "gods". So no shock that a King from the same royal line, and Jesus would both have the name. . .

There is a similar story as the Babylonian king being identified with Satan (and Satan/or the king being identified with Jesus) as there is for the connection of Satan to Beelzebub. It is originally the name of a Philistine "god".

The name is a form of Baal, the compound name: Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies"

Source

 As I discussed in my last post, Baal is associated with just about every "false god" in the Bible, and it is also a name equated with the many names for the "One true God". It was originally very likely an Ancient alien's name, but later became known as a generic term for the family line.

    What about the term Devil? Where did that come from?
In the Septuagint the Hebrew ha-Satan is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament is the English word devil. So the person who slanders would be known as a Devil, in a similar way that a person who accuses would have been known as a satan. Again, not a title, but a verb.

"In mainstream Judaism (From which the other religions of the world sprang) there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden from Genesis and references to a Satan in the first book of Chronicles and in Job. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (השָׂטָן) means "the adversary" or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge). As much as the Devil exists in any form of Judaism, his role is as an adversary and an accuser which is assigned (by "God") rather than assumed."
Source

While all these points do not show that God and Satan are the same, much to the chagrin of some,(hopefully the title wasn't too misleading. . .) they nonetheless certainly discredit all the  major supportive verses on Satan. . . but if you still want to believe that Satan is real, then you should know that some Satanist cults use the same Bible as the Christians. 
Besides that, considering the connection to "pagan" worship that words like: Amen, Bible, Church, Cross, Easter, Ghost, Glory, Holy, Testament, and all of the names for God have, (as discussed in my last post) to use them at all should be considered Satan worship to your enlightened mind now. Because if you still believe in Satan, you must now believe that those words all originated from a false god concocted by Satan for sure!

Source Source

Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10

While this post is part of a very interconnected series, I don't want to presume that we start with the same knowledge or presumptions about God. . .so for starters one could ask: "Who is God?" "What are his names?" Or "What do his names say about him?" Well the names and their origins are a very good starting place.

Gad - the origin of the term "God".

"In the Hebrew and Chaldean languages we find that the vowels are represented by points, because the written form consists ONLY of consonants. Therefore 'Gad' would only have the consonants 'G-D.' (Which Jews to this day spell God like.) It could just as well be spoken as "Gad, Ged, Gid, GOD, Gud, Gawd," or ANY other vowel sound."

The Definition Of The Word Gad, (from which God comes):

"Gad is a Syrian or Canaanite deity of good luck or fortune. . . identified with. . . the Sky-deity. "


Strong's definition for #H1408: "Gad" (gad); a variation of #H1409; Fortune, a Babylonian deity.

..........................................................................

This is seen in the name of Jacobs son Gad meaning "luck".

Source

A poor translation of Gen. 30:11 renders the word Gad as "troop", and makes the sentence read:

"And Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. Then Leah said, 'A troop comes!' So she called his name 'Gad'"  

Now lets read these verses in a better translation:
"And when Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son, Leah said, 'What luck! So she named him 'Gad' (Gen. 30:10-11 Tanakh)

Next let's see those verses in the New Revised Standard Bible:
"Then Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. And Leah said, 'Good fortune!' so she named him 'Gad'" (Gen. 30:10-11 NRS).

We see the acknowledgement of "troop" meaning the God of luck or fortune in different translations of the same Bible verse! So according to the original and right translation, Leah was really more saying "here comes my luck" or "what luck, (a boy)!". . .which makes a lot more sense with that man centered society then "a troop" coming in a time of peace, and with having a singleton child. Especially considering the fierce competition to be the favored wife through bearing children, especially a male heir for Jacob. . .

Another example of the poor use of "troop" is found (as usual) in the KJV translation in Isaiah 65:11

 "But you are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop. . ." (KJV) What sense does "that troop" even make?

 The same verse in the NIV says, "But as for you who forsake the LORD and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune. . ." (Here "Fortune" should include "the god of" before fortune, as it does elsewhere. . .)

Other references for this name "Gad" are found in the Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, page 157. There we read:
"...Fortune... specially the divinity of fortune, worshiped by the Babylonians and by the Jews exiled among them; elsewhere called 'Baal'." In Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, under "Ba--al Gad:" it says 'lord of fortune!' Other sources of research also testify of "Gad" being the Sun-deity or Baal. "There can be no doubt, therefore, that Gad, (Gud, Ged, Gid, Gawd. . .or GOD) originated from Baal (Bel), the god of good fortune."

So then Gad, God, Gud. . . are all associated with the "Sky god" of luck/fortune, or Baal, whom the ancient astrologers identified with Jupiter, the Sky-deity or the Sun-deity. Could that belief have derived from the fact that the original Gad would have came from the sky, or perhaps even Jupiter I wonder? Could he have been idolized later as bringing luck or fortune to you if you found favor with him, or were "his child"  and thus the association with luck or fortune? Makes sense to me. . .

As for the name Gad being synonymous with Baal though, this is not a shocker to many.
Every educated and "good" Jew likely knows about the pagan origins of many newer terms in the Bible though, and consequently avoids the newer, generic terms like "God". . .opting instead for ones like Yahweh.

                    So what about that name for "God"?
The Name Yahweh comes from the root YHWH, from which all the other forms of it (with the added vowels) are derived. YHWH in all it's variations all lead back to the sky god/ Sun god/Baal, and is  seen 6820 times in the Old testament alone.
There are many different additions to the name YHWH though that are said to describe him. These are :

· YHWH, Yahuah (I AM that I AM)

· YAHUAH NISSI (Yahuah My Banner)

· YAHUAH RAAH (Yahuah My Shepherd)

· YAHUAH RAPHA (Yahuah Heals)

· YAHUAH SHAMMAH (Yahuah Is There)

· YAHUAH TSIDKENU (Yahuah Our Righteousness)

· YAHUAH MEKODDISHKEM (Yahuah Who Sanctifies You)

· YAHUAH JIREH (Yahuah Will Provide)

· YAHUAH SHALOM (Yahuah Is Peace)

· YAHUAH SABAOTH (Yahuah of Hosts)

· YAH shortened and poetic form of Yahuah, the name found in the Son's
name
 (Yah is also found in compound names such as Eli(J)Yah  which according to the Hebrew means "Yahuah is Elohim".)
So here we see that Yahuah (with all it's forms) is equated with Elohim, the root of which is "El", meaning "The mighty one".  Titles like "Mighty One",  do not necessarily refer to a god though, in what is generally thought of as a god anyways - Nimrod proclaimed himself as "mighty one" also. 

 Elohim, in Hebrew means gods, (which is traced back to all gods like Baal) or spirits/Angels. In the singular, it is El, meaning the supreme Canaanite god. Thus the early Hebrews worshiped the same God or gods as their "heathen" neighbors.

El too is part of many compound names that are descriptive in the Hebrew. Names like:

· EL OHIM (Strong One)
· EL OLAM (The Everlasting GOD)
· El SHADDAI (Yahuah Almighty)
· El ELYON (The Most High GOD)
Source

Most translations today, despite all these nuances, have simply changed the names (and singular or plural) of El into "God"! It is correctly used as it's plural form 10% of the time or 216 times in the Old Testament for "gods" and mistranslated 2366 times for a singular "God".

 A good example of how the English translation seems to intentionally mislead the uninformed into believing in one biblical God can be found in Genesis 3:5. "For God [Elohim] doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [Elohim], knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:5 KJV) Modern translations convert both Elohim's to the singular God (instead of making them both plural as they should be) to hide a critical embarrassment. Of course, neither would perfectly fit as it is, because the grammar would be lacking with out adding a "the" before the first god. . .



Another example of the Bible contradicting itself is in John 10:34, 35 which has Jesus saying, "Is it not written in your Law, 'l said you are Gods?' (referring to Ps 82:6 where the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used.)


Another memorable example of the plural of gods is in Samuel 28:13 where the witch of Endor saw the future and made some accurate predictions. "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (Elohim) ascending out of the earth." (KJV)

So, either the witch was wrong, or she actually had powers and saw the gods coming out of the earth. . .


"In the following verses Elohim was translated as God singular in the King James Version even though it was accompanied by plural verbs and other plural grammatical terms."

Gen 35:7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed (plural verb) himself to him when he fled from his brother (Genesis 35:7, ESV)

"Here the Hebrew verb "revealed" is plural, hence: "the-gods were revealed". A NET Bible note claims that the Authorized Version wrongly translates: "God appeared unto him"."
Source


The singular form of Elohim is Eloah and it is used only 55 times in place of "God." This seemingly intentional mistranslation hides the pluralistic nature of the Hebrew pantheon of gods. To the Israelites, Elohim encompasses all supernatural beings: spirits, angels, semi-gods and so forth. So whenever they spoke of  Elohim, they were inferring some or the entire pantheon.

According to the true Hebrew translation, (which is consistent with all previous beliefs that their beliefs were derived from) there were many gods involved in creation. There was not one single god all by himself, though there was consistently believed to be one top ruler of the counsel of the gods.

If God was one, then why was he said to be jealous of other imagined gods? Furthermore, why does the Bible so often speak of God in plural and in a counsel? "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." (Ps. 82:1)

We see evidence of this pantheon of gods from the very first verse in the Bible! "In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Which then explains the true meaning of, "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:22)
Source

According to the "pagan" definition of all immortal beings as gods, Christianity is just as polytheistic.

Even in the Ten Commandments, "God" recognizes the existence of other gods. There is a big difference between, "you shall have no other gods" vs. "there are no other gods." (Ex. 20:3)

"Bear in mind that Christianity is on even shakier grounds in maintaining the existence of only one God first, by canonizing Jewish Scripture the Christian Fathers gave recognition to Yahweh and the pantheon of lesser gods mentioned by name throughout the Old Testament. In conclusion, if the English translators stuck to the original god names, they would not be able to deceive their readers into believing that Judaism was always a monotheistic religion."

Source

One of the problems with trying to make all the gods into one with the generic names, is that sometimes one "god" is pretty obviously not another one in the text. . .

 One such example is in Isaiah 65:11. "But you are those who forsake the Lord, (YHWH/GAD), who forgot my set-apart mountain, who prepared a table for fortune (or Gad), and filled bowls of mixed wine for Destiny." (Or literally "Meni".) As GAD is the deity of fortune, Meni is the deity of Destiny. Suddenly it goes from a sentence of condemnation for idolatry, to a statement of fact of their past hospitality towards GAD and his presumably fellow deity Meni.


Though often the generic naming justifies the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, it is also contradictory on the doctrine of the Trinity in many places that cannot be denied. Nonetheless, the "trinity" is one, in that they all originate from one name.

 Even coming from a christian source we see that "YHWH, YAHUAH also known as Yahuwah/Yahuweh/Yahweh and Yahveh, YAH ("I AM that I AM"). . . Along with YAHUSHA, translated as Joshua the Messiah / "ha Mashiach" (YHWH's only Son) and his Ruach (Spirit) ha (the) (Q) (K)odesh (Set Apart, Separation or the Separator) or רוחהקודש the "Spirit of YHWH" are all One!"

And all originating from GAD or Baal. So if you didn't catch that, let me reiterate; Yhwh, (God) Yhwh's only son, *Jesus) and the spirit of Yhwh/God are all one, that one being Baal! Though you won't catch that site admitting to that. . .

Source


What many feel is a generic "Pagan" title of "GAD or GOD" that "Yah" and "El" (and all their forms) come from, are in reality the origin of the Christian's faith! 

Maybe you are still not convinced though, and believe that some name is worthy of the true deity, and you will just worship "the unknown god" for lack of a better term until you find out what is the right one. . .sound familiar? That is the foolishness that Paul in the Bible spoke of. . .and yet his solution was not much better.

Well, we know so far that God is generic and a "Heathen" term, and a lot of others too. . .but what about Lord? Is that a safe one to use when praying? I hate to burst your bubble here too, but the title, "lord", is applied to all ancient deities, if the word "god" is not used for them.

In most cases "lord" and "god" are used interchangeably for idols or sky deities. For instance:

Strong's Hebrew Number 1168 Hebrew word: Ba'al {bah'-al}Strong’s shows:

Baal = "lord" (Baal equals Lord).

Strong’s says: Lord or Baal was the "supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites."

Baal also means "Master" as much as it means "Lord". "Protector", "Healer", "Savior", etc. are also of "Pagan" origin, and describes none other then the sky deities.

The Lord also translates to Adonay/ ADONAI in the Bible. (Adonay, much less it's variations, occur 430 times in the Old Testament.)

The "mythological" ODIN is called by this same name.  ODIN itself though is a title indicative of Kingship. Priam Herman L. Hoeh has traced Odin's lineage back to Jacob, which would, not surprisingly confirm that he was of the kingship line of the Hebrews, that later passed on to many groups as they moved around.
 Lord is used very generically and can refer to numerous gods in history, and even in the Bible!

Take this verse for instance: "For I know that the LORD [Yahweh] is great, and that our Lord [adon] is above all gods. (Ps. 135:5) It doesn't make much sense to be talking about one God! THE Lord is only "great" vs. OUR Lord "is above all gods" seems suspicious to me on many points. . . but then, it is already a closed book on "God" actually being plural throughout the Bible, so we should expect numerous names of different gods to show up in the same passages.

And yet, despite all this proof of different gods and also yet from the "pagan" origins,
most translations today, have simply changed the name of YHWH to "The Lord" to simplify matters. "Lord" is substituted for Yehovah -a form of YHWH-over 6,400 times.

If this all doesn't bring it home to you about how the Israelite's god was just one in the council of gods back then, "Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, [she was] the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat."
Source

Oh but you say, "that is the OLD testament, and I think people have messed with it in time". . .or "Jesus was the only true "God"." (For lack of a better term.) Sorry to say, but in the New Testament, typically, the translation of Yahusha/Jehoshua or "Joshua the Messiah",  (all forms of YHWH) is "Jesus". . .
Source

 YAHUSHA is translated as Joshua in the Old Testament, and Jesus in the New Testament. There has been a lot of confusion over Jesus's name, but it is not too hard to trace back to the real story. It goes like this:

"In Bux and Schone, Worterbuch der Antike, under "Jesus", we read, that JESUS's real name was Jehoshua. The Greeks, who venerated a healing goddess Ieso, (a savior who healed) must have immediately equated Jehoshua with their similar "gods" from antiquity, so the Greeks changed Ieso into a regular masculine Iesous to fit Jehoshua.

 Later the latin translation rendered it Iesus. By the year 1611 the letter "J" was officially part of the English language and the King James Bible printed the name Iesus as "Jesus" for the first time. The name "Jesus" has been in use ever since. To hear the long story of the evolution of the name through many languages, check out my source called "evolution of the name. . ." below.
Source

"Jesus" became a very common name, and is one reason why there is much confusion over Jehoshua's real life to this day. His life, healing abilities, leadership qualities, marriage and family tree, as well as his death got confused with numerous people, and in the end, the biblical editors took all the stories of the different famous leaders of the time and wove them together to make the most sense of it and to make every sect happy or pacified. 

Source 

This name, as all the others I've mentioned, is of course traced back to Baal, but not just in name we now know.  His life or the myths about him, follows a pattern very similar to many aspects of the said "life" of Baal. A tablet discovered in Nineveh, Assyria and in the possession of The British Museum contains references to the BAAL myth. In it we see some interesting parallels to Jesus:

(1) Baal is taken prisoner.(1) Jesus is taken prisoner.
(2) Baal is tried in a great hall.(2) Jesus is tried a great hall—the Hall of Justice.
(3) Baal is smitten.(3) Jesus is smitten and scourged.
(4) Baal is led away to the Mount (a sacred grove on a hilltop).(4) Jesus is led away to Golgotha.
(5) With Baal are taken two malefactors, one of whom is released. (5) With Jesus two malefactors are led away; Barrabas is released.
(6) After Baal has gone to the Mount and is executed, the city breaks into tumult. (6) After Jesus is executed, there is an earthquake, the veil of the Temple is rent, the dead rise from their graves and walk among the living.
(7) Baal's clothes are carried away.(7) Jesus's clothes are carried away after soldiers cast dice for them.
(8) Baal goes down into the Mount and disappears from life.(8) Jesus descends to "Hell" after being in the tomb.
(9) Weeping women seek Baal at the Tomb.(9) Weeping women seek Jesus at the Tomb.
(10) Baal is brought back to life.(10) Jesus is resurrected—rises from the grave/Tomb.
Source


                    What about "Christ"? Well, as Jesus is connected with Baal already, it is almost pointless to bring up the history of "Christ", but here goes:

"According to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, the word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos, meaning "good." According to a French theological dictionary, it is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus, Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani were used indifferently by the Christian authors of the first two centuries A.D. The word Christianos is a Latinism, being contributed neither by the Jews nor by the Christians themselves. The word was said to be introduced from one of three origins: the Roman police, the Roman populace, or more likely from a "pagan" origin. Its infrequent use in the New Testament suggests an earlier pagan origin though they say. According to Tertullian and Lactantius, the common people usually said "Christ" instead of Chrestos."

According to Christianity and Mythology, Osiris, another sky-deity of Egypt, was reverenced as Chrestos. In the Synagogue of the Marcionites on Mount Hermon, built in the third century A.D., the title "Messiah" is rendered Chrestos. Not surprisingly then, the title's "Messiah", and "Christ" are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and both said to describe Jesus. Remember, YAHUSHA, (a form of GAD) translated as Joshua/Jesus the Messiah?

Source

 The knowledge of this generic naming of the deities connected with "Heathen" deities or religions has caused some names to be shunned by some religions and sects (i.e. Jews, Muslims) as false gods, while other more ignorant and newer sects just accept "God", (and other common  names for him) as generic names for their "one true God". The funny thing is, they all originated from the Sky god(s), and were almost definitely speaking of the ancient aliens that I have discussed in detail in the rest of this series!

Sadly, those who don't study history, just allow the faith to continue to evolve into more ignorance?

Of course, no one wants to admit to their ignorance of religion's evolution, especially when they are still in the religion, but the many facts are really undeniable when you honestly look at them. Through "patternism" came all the religions of the world, and they have evolved to such a disconnected bunch of religions and sects that at a glance one might think there is no connection with them now. . .but there is!

It all goes back to the start. . .with the first known writing; the Sumerian text. If you haven't been keeping up with my series, the Sumerian text was an ancient work that the later ancient (religious) texts all took their words and stories from. The writings describe men who came down from the sky and seeded the earth with the human race. A creation genetically modified with their own blood (what we know of today as the blood alien to the planet; the RH- blood.) that they called their children. These extraterrestrials were called the Annanaki, later their name was translated "Tall men" (or tall guys) and this is (one of) the names given to the ones we call "Gods" in every religion.

Commonly, the generic word "God", is not understood for meaning "tall men", yet that is precisely what it has always meant. The original "tall men" were sometimes also referred to as Angels, sometimes sons of God, and other times giants, but always they were the ancient aliens. This god-like bloodline that were their"children"/creation has always been venerated and kept pure by many small secret groups. Secret societies like the brotherhood, the Free Masons and the scull and bones society, and are still around. . . only allowing certain families in. . .those today who just happen to be "the elite", who are controlling the world.  There are many strong indications that they know about the bloodline (Rh-) connection, and are (and have been) using their knowledge and special powers to gain control in every way possible. A subject which I discussed in my popular post:

The difference in our blood, and what it means. Part 3

Have you ever noticed how the term "In God we trust" is on the dollar bill in The USA, and right alongside the masonic/ancient "cult" symbols of the third eye, and pyramid? It is not a contradiction to a Christian's concept that this country was founded on a belief in "God", as some want to believe. . .instead, it goes way back to the original -but forgotten- "Christian" beliefs. If you define God as some spirit in the air who answers your prayers and fights your battles, listening to your every thought . . .well, you both don't know history, and you have believed a fairy tale with no evidence for it but your emotions.

As you can see from this post, the names pretty much tell it all, if you follow history and languages at all.

After hearing about all of this myself though, one question remained in my mind:

Why so many names for mostly the same "gods"?
What I found out was, that in the Ancient Near East, a number of deities were known be several names. For example, the Babylonian deity Marduk had 50 names, the Egyptian deity Re had 74 names, and Osiris had 100 to 142 names. Such deities also had hidden or secret names known only by certain priests who supposedly knew the proper way to invoke them without offense. It was believed that these hidden names would give the speakers access to and influence with-and sometimes magical powers over- the named. This is also strongly implied in many verses in the Bible as well.

That, in and of itself, is responsible for much of the confusion over names in the Bible. 

The confusion is not always just about lots of different names for the same gods, or even different gods being made into one though. . . sometimes one god is made into two!

Beelzebub, meaning "Lord of Flies", is a Angel/god whose original name has been reconstructed as "Ba'al Zabul," meaning "Baal the Prince." Considering that Baal is always translated as some form for "God", as we've seen already in this post, it stands to reason that some people have mistaken Beelzebub, (said to be another name for Satan) for "God",. . .but I'll get into that in my next post called: "Are God and Satan really one and the same as some say. . .? Part 11"