Preface by Sabrina Pieragostino

The divinity, understood in its spiritual sense, is not present in

the Old Testament. Specifically, God is not mentioned in the
Bible, nor is any worship dedicated to Him. This is why the
title asserts that the Bible is not a sacred book. Who
intervened over the centuries to modify the Bible? Are we
victims of a great deception?

Read this book and discover much of what is contained in the

Bible:
• We have only one of the many possible Bibles;
• We know nothing about who wrote it or when;
• The true nature of the Tree of Life has been hidden from us;
• We are GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms);
• God gets tired, gets dirty, and gets hungry;
• There are 11 biblical books that are officially missing;
• The creation of Man, understood as a divine act, is false;
• Original Sin is just a fable;
• The biblical God was not the father of Jesus;
• How to build a religion.

"Reading Mauro Biglino represents a constant vertigo. It

means accepting to discuss all our certainties, influenced by
centuries of doctrine, catechesis, and popular traditions built
upon the foundations of the Old Testament as a revealed text,
from which God spoke to Humanity."

- Sabrina Pieragostini (journalist from Mediaset)

 Preface

Preface by Sabrina Pieragostino

(MediaSet Journalist 1)

Ignorant. Arrogant. Coward. Even heretical. Just by looking at the blogs that
comment on Mauro Biglino's books, one comes across these and other
unsympathetic adjectives. On the contrary, I prefer to think of him with another
adjective: destabilizing. It is this aspect that leads me to read his translations and
interpretations of the Book of Books, the Bible that practically all of us have at
home but few open to read. The feeling that his works generate in someone like
me, who had a traditional Christian education, is similar to standing on top of a
mountain, in front of a precipice: at the same time fear and attraction, because
one knows it can be dangerous, but curiosity is stronger...

Reading Mauro Biglino represents a constant vertigo. It means accepting to

discuss all of our certainties, influenced by centuries of doctrine, catechism, and
popular traditions built upon the foundations of the Old Testament as a revealed
text, from which God spoke to humanity. But those foundations seem to crumble
under the blows of a meticulous textual analysis, to the point of becoming
obsessed, highlighting every minuscule contradiction and eliminating any
theological superstructure.

What remains is a story very different from the one we were told. In
previous books, Biglino proceeded with the care of a philologist, translating
complete passages from Hebrew literally or dwelling on each word, confronting
variants and interpolations in the original Masoretic text, examining the various
possible interpretations. It is practically a university work – even if clearly in
contrast to the dominant reading –, which forces the reader to pay greater
attention and concentration to follow the scholar's step. But in this latest work,
even without renouncing the rigor of the scholar, the discourse flows more
smoothly and directly. With two consequences: the reading is simplified and the
destabilizing effect becomes even more amplified.

The Bible is not a sacred book. Not only that: the Bible does not talk about
creation. And even more: the Bible does not even talk about God. Three
misleading concepts that
 The author justifies and explains with citations, textual references, and
examples. It cites professors and Hebrew teachers, rabbis, and biologists, who
seem to confirm premises and conclusions. It reveals connections and affinities
with other ancient texts (including Homer, about whom I deluded myself,
thinking I knew everything about him), which can be considered - just like the
Bible - as a mere historical work. It denounces incongruities, exposes
established truths, presents an uncomfortable and absurd alternative reality, in
which one can choose not to believe but can no longer ignore. At the end of the
journey, the reader feels stunned, lost, with that feeling of discomfort often
caused by altitude. But the view from those heights has no limits.
1
The largest private television network in Italy. - N.T.
 The Bible is not a Sacred Book - The great deception

Why does the book have this title?

In the common sense, the "Bible" refers to the Old Testament and, like the
rest of the books, is known by the concise definition of the Gospels and New
Testament; in this work, the term "Bible," used for convenience, specifically
indicates the Old Testament.
For the meaning of the term "sagrado," I consult the definitions found in
Portuguese language dictionaries.
Sacred (New Aurélio Dictionary): someone who was crowned or received
consecration. Pertaining to divine things, religion, rituals, or worship; sacred,
holy.
Sacred (Michaelis Dictionary): that has received consecration; that has been
consecrated. Relating to, inherent in, belonging to, dedicated to God, a deity, or
a religious purpose: the Sacred Scripture. Worthy of religious veneration or
respect due to association with God or divine things; holy, sanctified.
The reading of this work and the previous ones highlights how the "divinity",
spiritually speaking, is not present in the Old Testament and, above all, there is no God,
there is no worship dedicated to God.
There is fearful obedience, directed towards an individual named Yahweh,
who belongs to the group of Elohim, beings of flesh and blood that are never
defined as "gods" in spiritual terms.
The book of Ecclesiastes, which is called Kohelet in the Hebrew Bible, then
states with a clarity that leaves no room for doubt that man has nothing more
(soul or spirit) in comparison to animals and that, after death, man and animals
go to the same place (3:19-20).
That is why the title states unequivocally that the Bible is not a "sacred" book, taking
as a point of reference the common meaning of the term.
The meanings that many subjectively attribute to the term "sacred" cannot
be considered because everything that relates to communication should In
discussing the content, it is necessary to take into account the formal value of
each term, shared in a non-subjective or personal manner; otherwise, there
would be a complete impossibility of communicating and understanding the
meaning of this communication.
 Introduction: From the Bible to Pinocchio
More and more people are asking me: Mauro, but is the Bible really a made-up story?
After having spent many years as a translator of Masoretic Hebrew, I have
published 17 books from the Old Testament translated from the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (Codex Leningradensis) by Edizioni San Paolo. I have also
published three books about the Bible, three years of public activity, and sold
over 30,000 books. With this work, which I cannot truly define as a book but
rather as a "lecture done with the keyboard" instead of the microphone, I
present.
It is an essay on various topics, made with the intention of highlighting the
basic question that concerns our relationship with that book, about which I ask
the following question: Did the holders of knowledge narrate what is really
contained in it?
The answer, to me, is obvious: absolutely not. They not only limited
themselves to not telling the truth, but also went further: intentionally and
shamelessly, they invented what does not exist. This is the reason for choosing a
title so affirmative and seemingly provocative.
In this "keyboard-made lecture", there are also answers to criticisms and
observations that were made by representatives of various doctrines, often
contradictory, regarding the hypotheses contained in the earlier works, which
will be mentioned later on.
A journey that starts from the first verse of Genesis to arrive at reflection -
even if it is, for now, in a very synthetic way - on the final deception: therefore,
from Adam to Jesus.
A story that the holders of knowledge idealized, using texts considered sacred as a mere
pretext, as inspiration to give voice to their artificial creation.
Regarding this "lecture," I intentionally decided to reduce the number of
citations and bibliographical references that are numerous in my other books:
therefore, the bibliography is essential and contains the reference texts of the
citations. mentioned. On the other hand, in these three years of public exposure
of my studies, I have noticed that professional critics have a strange, very
curious, and at the very least, incoherent behavior: if they hear or read a
statement that aligns with their own ideas, they don't ask for the source and don't
expect it to be contextualized, accepting it as it is formulated without raising
other questions, even if that statement may turn out to be the absurdity of the
century. If, on the contrary, they hear or read a statement that does not align with
their own ideas, or worse yet, that challenges them, they immediately ask for the
source, introduce the concept of allegory or metaphor, applying contextual
justification, etc., etc. For example, if I write that Yahweh loved all of Humanity
(which contrasts with the entire Old Testament), the critics remain silent; but if
they do not agree with what I write, they immediately demand the source and
introduce various justifications.
 I have never heard anyone say that the first verse of Genesis has an
allegorical meaning; however, precisely that verse contains a statement that has
nothing to do with what has been transmitted to us, that is, it does not speak
about "creation," but about something else (see the specific analysis made in my
previous work, "There is no creation in the Bible").
Finally, the essence of the behavior of dogmatic individuals is as follows:
what pleases can and should be read literally, exactly as written, while what does
not please requires in-depth analysis and different types of interpretations.
This "written lecture" is therefore like a chain whose flow follows thoughts
that evoke each other without didascalic subdivisions. I didn't even report the
verses in Hebrew, as I had done in previous books and as I will do in future
works, because intentionally, I decided to give space to official translations,
those that are not contested – and I am referring particularly to the versions of
the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference), to which the merit of always acting
objectively in the exposition of the meanings of the Hebrew text must be
recognized, even in passages that can be considered inappropriate, or even
adverse, to the doctrine.
I also gave a lot of space to the theses of the rabbis, who study these texts
with a free attitude, detached from the constraints of ultra-Orthodox integralists
and the ideology of nationalist origin (known by the term "Zionism"), whose
dogmatism does not admit doubts or reflections that may potentially lead to
different conclusions from those already established. I would just like to specify
that when I mention Hebrew philology in general, I refer to those blogs and
forums where Hebrew biblical philologists have analyzed my previous works.
Therefore, the reader will follow this river, gathering suggestions and stimuli
to continue their personal deepening and initiate an autonomous reflection,
which is useful for understanding the true consistency (should I say
inconsistency) of the foundations of that great construction that, over the
centuries, was built and presented as true.
As I always say and write, I know that I am not the owner of the truth and I
also know that I can make mistakes, from which no one is exempt; at the same
time, without presumption, I am aware of having matured in the last decades, at
least in terms of that modest knowledge that is enough to reveal obvious errors
of others: this is testified by the 17 books of my translations, published by
Edizioni San Paolo.
The doubts and questions that arise in the reader's mind are a true tonic that
stimulates the beginning of a process of autonomous knowledge, independent of
any type of conditioning.
For this reason, I continue on the path traced in these years: I translate
Hebrew literally, trying to tell with the utmost clarity possible what I find, and if
what I find is a fable, just like Pinocchio's, I tell Pinocchio, but it is necessary to
know that in that case the fable was introduced and elaborated by the writers of
the Hebrew Bible.
 Is the Bible trustworthy?
As previously mentioned, for convenience, I will use the term "Bible" to
refer to the Old Testament, and I begin by stating that it has been the subject of a
colossal deception. It is a work of concealment practiced over the centuries by
those who wished to utilize that collection of writings for purposes that have
nothing to do with its true meaning. have to do with spirituality, even though the
term spirituality has been widely used, but in a deceptive or at least incorrect
way, by those acting in good faith.
What we know about the Old Testament is what the powerful of each era
wanted to transmit to us, starting from the Hebrew theologians who began the
elaboration of the monotheistic doctrine, up to the current structures that act
through theological and ideological thought systems devoid of any foundation.
Only the mystification of the biblical text made its diffusion possible.
I start by portraying a confusing reality that has nothing to do with
translations. Catholics have to believe that the 46 books of the Old Testament
are true, that is, inspired by the supposed biblical God, while the Hebrew canon
only accepts 39 because it does not recognize some of those books as true,
which Christians, on the other hand, accept as God's inspiration: Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiastes or Qohelet, the first and second books of the
Maccabees, and some passages in Esther 10:4-c. 16 and Daniel 3:24-90.
The Bibles that we have are fundamentally based on the Stuttgartensia Bible,
the printed version of the Leningrad Codex (all of this was explained in my two
previous works: The Book that Will Forever Change Our Ideas about the Bible
and The Alien God of the Bible) 1.
The Protestant Church, Protestantism, fundamentally adheres to the Hebrew
canon. Coptic Christians consider canonical books that contain inspired truths,
which Roman Catholics and Hebrews do not accept, such as the Book of Enoch
and the Book of Jubilees. The Greek Orthodox Church, on the other hand, does
not use the Masoretic Codex of Leningrad as a basis, but rather the Septuagint, a
Bible written in Greek in Egypt in the 3rd century BC (see the appendices of the
aforementioned texts for more information). This Greek Bible presents about a
thousand variations compared to the Masoretic text, some of which are very
important because they contain considerable differences in the meaning of the
text, often even capable of revealing adjustments (textual falsities) produced by
the Massoretes. This Greek version represented the biblical foundation for (5th
century BC). But that's not all.
If a person is born in Palestine, in the territory of the Samaritans, they will
hear that the truth is not found in the codices written by the Masoretes, but in the
Samaritan Torah (Pentateuch), which, compared to the Masoretic text, presents
2000 variations. The Peshitta, the Syrian Bible - accepted by the Maronites,
Nestorians, Jacobites, and Melkites - is also different from the Masoretic text.
Therefore, even before translations, we have as many Bibles as possible and
we become aware that all of them, with their countless variations, are
unquestionably declared true by those who live within the traditions that accept
them.
These first indications would, by themselves, be sufficient to make us
understand that the Bible we are supposed to believe in depends on the historical
period and geographical location in which we were born. In other words, there is
no "absolute" because there is always someone who decides for us, dogmatically
indicating to us what the truth should be and where it can be found.
But the situation is not that simple. The oldest biblical texts we have are
those found in the caves of Qumran: some of them date back to the 2nd century
BC. Now, between the text of Isaiah found in these scrolls and the text of Isaiah
written by the Masoretes, there are more than 250 variations, including whole
words that are found in the first and not in the second, and vice versa.
 The discrepancies about the prophet Daniel
are the 11 books that are officially missing.
And as if that wasn't enough, the disagreements are also within the
aforementioned canons: Catholic, Hebrew, Protestant, Coptic...
For example, for Catholics, Daniel is a prophet and, based on his prophecies,
which are considered plausible, apocalyptic predictions are sometimes
elaborated upon, from which many preachers derive their own benefits. On the
contrary, the Hebrews do not recognize Daniel as a prophet and... They place
your book among the simple Ketuvim, that is, among the less important writings
of the Old Testament. And that's not all: the pinnacle of the rabbinate in the
United States writes that your prophecies (for example, the one of the 490 years)
are the result of an intentional "manipulation" carried out to amend previous
writings (such as those of Jeremiah), which have proven to be false.
Nabonido; in Daniel 5:30 it is written that Belshazzar died during the
conquest of Babylon; however, the king who died that night was Nabonido,
because Belshazzar had already died previously, during a battle. Therefore,
Daniel is a prophet for Rome; for Jerusalem, he is not a prophet, and even a
"remodeler" according to Dr. David Wolpe (Dean Rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los
Angeles). At this point, considering what we could define as a lack of
intellectual honesty on the part of the author of the Book of Daniel, I add some
other objective elements, obvious errors made by the editors, which reveal their
lack of knowledge: in Daniel 4:30, it speaks of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar,
while it was actually his son Nabonido who went mad (555-539 BC). that he left
the throne and the city of Babylon to retire to an oasis called Tema (an event
also narrated in a document from Qumran, known as the Prayer of Nabonidus,
from which it appears that the Essene community seemed to be better informed
than the so-called prophet); in Daniel 5:2 it is written that Belshazzar was the
son of Nebuchadnezzar, but in reality he was the son of Ḫba'ušalim, which
happened outside the city; in Daniel 6:1 It is said that, at the moment of
Baldassare's death, Dario, the Mede, accepted the kingdom of Babylon, while it
was the Persian king Cyrus who conquered the city, and Dario conquered it
again only in the year 521 B.C., defeating a rebel who had taken power, self-
proclaiming himself Nebuchadnezzar IV; in Daniel 10:4, a vision that the
prophet had in Babylon is narrated, and the text transcribes it – "I was on the
banks of the river Tigris" – when it is known that it is the Euphrates River that
runs in Babylon (!).
In summary: with numerical and prophetic mystification, with ignorance
about historical and geographical facts (often revealed even in the footnotes of
Catholic Bibles), I have to comment that the author of that text really made a
terrible use of the so-called divine inspiration.
The Hebrew canon acts better, it is more prudent, because it places it as a
simple ketuvim, that is, as it was said before, among the less important writings,
where it definitely finds its ideal place.
 Other similar errors can be found in the Book of Tobias, which, however, is
also not accepted by the Hebrew canon: in Tobias 1:2 it is written that the
deportation... The mentioned event in that passage occurred during the
Enemessaro period (Salmanaser or Sargon II?); however, it was found during
the Tiglath-Pileser III period that, in the Second Book of Kings 15:29, it is
indeed mentioned that he conquered the land of Naphtali and deported its
inhabitants to Assyria; in Tobias 1:15, it is written that when Salmanaser died,
his son Sennacherib ascended to the throne, while it is believed that his
successor was Sargon II and that Sennacherib was the successor of the latter.
These are just a few examples of the countless inconsistencies and errors
that, as mentioned before, anyone can find even in the footnotes of the bibles we
have at home. Certainly, we can consider these lapses as scriptural problems due
to various reasons, which I will talk about soon, but it remains a fact that the
credibility of the authors of these texts (especially Daniel, who not only makes
mistakes but intentionally alters them) certainly cannot be considered
exemplary. However, the book of Daniel is included in the Catholic canon, and
even among the major prophets.
It is therefore evident that we possess only "one" of the possible bibles. I say
"one" because the possible bibles are potentially more numerous than one can
imagine: they are more numerous than those indicated above, because to these
we can add all those texts that throughout the centuries have disappeared but are
cited in the officially accepted Bible: texts known by ancient authors, who
considered them valid to the point of using them as sources or references for the
readers of that time.
Here is the list of the 11 books officially considered missing, but mentioned in
the Bible (with the biblical passages where they are mentioned indicated in
parentheses):
The Wars of Yahweh (Numbers 21:14);
Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18);
Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41);
Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29);
Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29);
Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29, 2 Chronicles 9:29);
The Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chronicles 9:29);
The Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29);
The Book of Shemaiah (2 Chronicles 12:15);
The Book of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34).
Sayings of the seers (2 Chronicles 33:19).
We wonder: were they destroyed or simply made unavailable? Why did they
disappear? Who intervened in them during these centuries? I am not only
referring to the Roman Church, but also, and I would even say mainly, to the
priests and theologians of the Temple of Jerusalem...
Why were they eliminated, making them no longer accessible? What did
they contain that was so dangerous to the doctrines that the powerful of that
time, and any time, should transmit? Were they too clear and explicit in
presenting Yahweh and his way of acting? Would they have compromised the
monotheistic and sexist view that was decided to be developed and transmitted?
In addition, there are Hebrew exegetes who still intervene today in the Masoretic
version and - without considering the masorah, that is, the "tradition" - produce
variations in the text, replacing vowels to extract/introduce new and completely
different meanings from those that the masorah had transmitted. This behavior,
so free, is proof of the fact that there are various "traditions," and mainly
represents a confirmation of the foundation of the title of this work: these same
Hebrew exegetes evidently did not consider the Old Testament "sacred"
because, if it were truly sacred, they could not even think of intervening to
modify it; what is "sacred" is "untouchable" by nature.
The situation is so problematic that in 1958, at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, they felt the need to try to reconstruct a Bible that is as close as
possible to the one written originally, which obviously no one knows what it is.
This Bible Project, as it is called, is expected to last two centuries: therefore, in
about 140 years, we may have a biblical text similar to the hypothetical original,
but unknown.
One fundamental element will always remain to be known: vocalization. Let
me explain: all the texts were written only with the consonants in sequence,
without any distinction between each word, in other words, without spaces. The
work of the Massoretes - the Israeli guardians of tradition - which we mentioned
before, carried out between the 6th and 9th centuries AD, in a relatively recent
period, precisely consisted of identifying each word and inserting the necessary
vowel sounds for the determination and identification of meanings and,
consequently, contents.
The Bible that we possess today received its definitive significance (inspired
by God?) during the time of Charlemagne.
One of the coordinators of the Bible Project, Professor Alexander Rofe from
Hebrew University, stated during an interview with Corriere della Sera in
August 2011 that each handwritten or dictated biblical text was never the same
as the previous one. The texts from around 400 BC were like an upside-down
funnel: for every word that entered, many others came out. But two and a half
centuries later, the opposite happened: the funnel overturned, and someone in
the temple said, "Here it is, this is the official text." From that moment on, all the
books were corrected, and if a book was too different, as it couldn't be
destroyed, they buried it. This was how reflections on the Sacred Scripture
began, but without preserving it.
 The castes that held control over "knowledge" sought to eliminate
everything that was not functional for (or challenged) the male-centric
monotheistic doctrine that had to be conveyed.
The fundamental idea was the attempt to obscure, cancel, and/or replace
anything that confronted the monotheistic idea that needed to be imposed.
Professor Rafael Zer, a biblical scholar from the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, states that when biblical passages clearly mentioned the undeniable
multiplicity of the Elohim (which was not accepted by the monoteism imposed
by the priests of Jerusalem nor, even today, by many dogmatic exegetes), the
biblical writers purposefully modified those passages, eliminating or
recopying them in a different way, with several "touches" of this kind. Let's
see two significant examples.
In Deuteronomy 32:43, in the translation supported by the Masoretes, we
have the following version: "Sing for joy, O nations, with his people, for he will
avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his adversaries [...]".
However, in the manuscript Bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the
theological/ideological intervention of the Masoretes, we have the following text
(The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, also mentioned by the English Standard Version):
"Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the
blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries..."
"Rejoice with Him, O heavens; prostrate before Him, all the gods, for He
will avenge the blood of His children and take vengeance on His adversaries."
The "heavens" became "nations," and instead of "all gods, bow down to
Him," it is written "with His people." To conclude, "His children" (meaning the
Elohim) were replaced by "servants." As it is clearly visible, all references to the
apparent plurality of the Elohim were skillfully suppressed.
There is another variation in Gen. 14:18-22, which tells the story of
Melchizedek. The local governor, by the command of El Elyon, ordered bread
and wine to be brought and blessed Abraham; in those verses, the Massoretes
stealthily joined Elyon with Yahweh and defined him as the "creator", while the
Qumran text, known as the "Apocryphal Genesis" (XXII, 14-21), - many
centuries older - mentions the following expression: "Blessed be Abraham by El
Elyon, lord of heaven and earth! And blessed be El Elyon, who delivered into
his hand all those who hate him!" There is no mention/union with Yahweh, and
in the quoted passage, Elyon is never defined as the "creator". Another clear
example of forgery in the oldest texts, made by those who wrote conditioned by
monotheistic doctrinal requirements. We know that the Pharisees, unlike the
Sadducees, believed in life after death, and when they had the opportunity to
intervene in the text, they made sure to subtly insert functional statements
according to their creed. For example, the oldest codes of the Book of Proverbs,
in 10:25. It contains the statement "The righteous will stand firm in their
integrity," which the Pharisees found it appropriate to replace with "The
righteous will stand firm in their death," with the aim of conveying the
conviction that the righteous will not see the end of their own life here. Although
this may seem to contradict what is written in Qohelet - Ecclesiastes (3:18 and
onwards) - where it is said, with unsettling clarity, that the fate of humans and
animals is absolutely equal, because humans have nothing more than animals
and that, with death, everyone returns to the earth from which they originate.
I emphasize the way in which "tradition" is often cited as a guarantee of
truth and therefore as an essential parameter. But, on the contrary, it is examples
like these that make us understand how "tradition" is a certainty of manipulation.
It is precisely "tradition" that must be questioned because it has artificially
modified the thinking of the ancient biblical authors, who did not have
theological purposes: they simply intended to narrate the memory of the events
related to the origin of their people. The same chronicles that, in the centuries
that followed, were modified and covered with harmful layers of nonexistent
mystery and spiritualist interpretations, which intentionally diverted the original
meaning, about which, as we know well, it would not have been possible to
build any kind of power system. However, in relation to the most important
question, that is, the need to transform Yahweh into the one God, we anticipate
that it is precisely about this Elohim, called Yahweh, and his real, concrete, and
absolutely non-divine figure, that I will provide further information, which
completes and enriches the analytical study conducted in the aforementioned
previous books.
I remind, in passing, that the Bible itself defines it with clear and
unequivocal clarity. Man of war, that is, "man of war" (Exodus 15:3) - and it is
no accident that the Vatican hierarchy has issued a kind of guideline to bishops
and priests, inviting them to avoid naming Yahweh, replacing this name with the
following terms: "Lord" or "Eternal." They possibly know very well who he
really was.
However, regarding the presumed biblical certainties, there is something
more to be said. According to several scholars, such as Professor Kamal Salibi
from the American University of Beirut, the Massoretes had to deal with
Hebrew written many centuries before them, a language they did not know, with
Aramaic being their native language. Indeed, there are numerous linguistic
errors, which are also well evidenced in the International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, a monumental work that catalogues all kinds of errors made by
scribes and copyists when writing the texts. Some have an origin that sharply
contrasts with what the collective conscious or unconscious take as certain, that
is, that those workers of the word always and in every way paid the utmost
attention when writing the presumed inspiration of God.
The scribes often made mistakes for various reasons: they did not
understand or misunderstood the meaning of the text, consequently incorrectly
dividing the words that had been written only with consonants and without
spaces in between, necessary for identifying them. They also made mistakes
when reading the reference text, resulting in repetitions, transpositions, and letter
substitutions. Other errors were made when a scribe dictated to others and they
misunderstood, when they were looking for a synonym, or due to negligence and
ignorance when dealing with unfamiliar content.
Finally, they would certainly not be examples of efficiency and precision,
and not even the thought that they were transmitting, the word of God, was
enough to motivate them, also because, at that time, they probably wouldn't
think about it. Professor Menachem Cohen, from BarIlan University, in the Tel
Aviv district, identified 1500 errors and inaccuracies of all kinds in the last 30
years of his biblical activity. Professor Rafael Zer, previously mentioned, clearly
recognizes, as mentioned in the article from Corriere, that scholars cannot ignore
that this book was administered by men who made mistakes, and that these
mistakes multiplied from passage to passage.
What would we say about an author, or even a simple student, who, writing
in their own language, made such a quantity of mistakes? What would we say
about their work? What would their credibility be? What respect would we
have? by him? It is up to each one of us to provide our own answers.
Furthermore, there are numerous and glaring contradictions, which we will not
delve into here because they deserve a separate study, which will be conducted
later.
 The story of David and Goliath: who to
believe in?
We will now analyze a narration known even by those who are not familiar
with the Bible: the story of David and Goliath. In the First Book of Samuel, in
chapter 17, it is narrated that the young David defeats the giant Goliath with a
blow from his sling, and then kills him by cutting off his head with his own
sword. Contrarily, in chapter 21 of the Second Book of Samuel, we read, with
surprise, that it was El-Hanā who killed Goliath and not David. However, the
surprise does not end here: in the First Book of Chronicles (chapter 20)... It is
written that El-Hanã killed Lami, the brother of Goliath, and not Goliath
himself. In short, this is just an example of the confusion that biblical writers
often did not understand, probably because different scribes transcribed different
books and therefore did not perceive the evident contradictions. Nonetheless,
there are those who affirm, with naive certainty, that the Bible is magnificent
because it is inspired by God and, for that reason, never makes mistakes. We can
talk about this naivety, or rather, we must define it as cunning, based on the
substantial certainty that the faithful do not read the Bible, but rather satisfy
themselves with the explanations of official and accredited exegetes.
Certainly, we will have to reveal at least one fact: if God was the inspirer of
the contents, he proved to be a terrible editor since he did not subsequently
verify what had been written by the very writers he had chosen...! It's as if he
had lost interest in the final product after inspiring dozens of authors.
I think about the director of a company who dictates a very important letter
to his secretary, one that is important for both the company and the employees,
and then shows no interest whatsoever in verifying if she faithfully transcribed
his thoughts. But in our case, an even more serious situation arises: if the
affirmations of theology were worthy of consideration, not only the destiny of A
company, as well as the eternal life of mankind, would depend on biblical truths!
Regarding this, how can we think that this God has not been even slightly
concerned, throughout the centuries, to ensure that his inspiration was written
with absolute clarity and accuracy?
On the contrary, we have to become aware of the reality: hundreds of scribes
have written down words that, most of the time, contradict each other, and often
the passages contain variations with relative inconsistencies among themselves,
being the result of deliberate choices to introduce meanings into the text that
originally did not exist.
At certain moments, I have an impression about this. Reading endless
analyses and discussions, spanning decades or sometimes centuries, about every
linguistic element, it seems like I am watching a congress of medical experts
passionately discussing the color of a patient's thumb nail. The experts do not
agree; some say it is lighter than normal, some believe it is darker, some claim it
is clearly a symptom of... etc., etc. However, this highly specialized consultation
has one characteristic: it takes place without considering the fact that this thumb
belongs to a body that was run over by a train, which ran over it with all its
wheels.
Well, this is the collection of books that make up the Bible: a corpus of
works whose authors and the time of writing are unknown, with no distinction
between each word and without the vowels, which ultimately carry the definitive
meaning. These are texts that have been written, rewritten, amended, integrated,
corrected, with variations. There are complete works that have disappeared or
been hidden, and then rediscovered, reworked, accepted, and discarded. These
books were only vocalized several centuries later, and then encapsulated in a
meaning established by theologians and/or ideologists, who operated based on
their convictions and conveniences of the time.
Some observe that the vocalization was done following the "tradition" and
consider this element as a guarantee of truth. Taking into consideration the
purposes of the tradition that I previously highlighted, I would say that this
element is, on the contrary, a valid reason to consider that vocalization as less
likely, precisely because its final objective is to transmit concepts that do not
belong to the original biblical writers, who were completely free from all forms
of religious or theological thought. Monotheistic theology was actually
artificially inserted over the centuries, and the Massoretes adapted to it, thus
favoring what is known as the "Tradition"
In order to have further confirmation of the implausibility of this so-called
"tradition", I remind you of the words of Professor Zer regarding the variations
produced with the purpose of intentionally hiding the multiplicity of the Elohim,
"the hypothetical single God of the tradition", in order to introduce the
monotheistic ideology that is absolutely not present in the oldest texts.
I cannot help but observe how fallacious certain official criticisms can be at
times, as they tend to defame a source when it presents hypotheses that
challenge preconceived truth. In these cases, the scholar begins to be harshly
attacked in order to defame them, assuming that if their source is not
corroborated, the theses they present are not valid. But if this rule were to
assume universal value, professional critics would need to become aware of a
reality: the Bible has no corroborated source.
Nothing is known about that text: who wrote it, neither when, nor how, nor
with what vowel sounds... We only know that we have copies of various copies,
and that these copies, as Professor Rofe affirms, cited before, are never the same
as the previous text: nobody knows the original.
Given these premises, is it still necessary to talk about deception? But
above all, is it still worth our while to address this issue?
The answer is "yes" to both questions. Firstly, because this is, in any case,
the book from which so many hypothetical absolute truths have been taken.
Entire and diverse theologies, nationalist ideologies, esoteric elaborations,
mystical currents, etc., etc., are based on it.
 This set of texts, as they were produced, gave rise to the constructions of the
spiritual worlds – God, angels, demons... – which, however, I assert with clear
determination, are not present in that book, as we will soon see. In addition,
based on that book, ideologies have been constructed that also condition, in a
political, cultural, social, and human way, the majority of modern and
contemporary history. The spiritualistic constructions, countless and fantastical,
which have developed over centuries, have been, and still are, in contradiction
with each other; however, they contribute, in a sort of tacit agreement, to the
diffusion of the basic deception, summed up in a statement that represents the
essence: the Bible speaks of God and the spiritual worlds that derive from and
depend on Him, exactly like the material world.
Christianity and Judaism are distant from each other in many ways, but
both effectively contribute to the spread of this. Basic falsehood, although
for different reasons and purposes.
A person belonging to the Roman Hebrew community informed me that the
Massoretes themselves had to extensively manipulate the biblical texts to
conceal their true, excessively cruel and concrete meaning in order for it to be
accepted. It was so raw and so concrete that it was considered a risky source, a
danger to the Hebrew world. He emphasized that it was a matter of life or death,
obviously concerning not only the Massoretes themselves but the entire Hebrew
people. Throughout the centuries of the Massoretes' activity. (VI-IX AD), the
people of Israel were scattered along the Mediterranean coast and in Europe, in
the territories where the two religions, Christianity and Islam, were competing
for supremacy, fighting with incredible violence and brutality. Thousands of
liters of blood were shed between Christians and Muslims, in the name of God
himself. In that situation, the Hebrew sages had no choice but to reconcile their
own text with the two religions, and so they did. They partially concealed their
harsh reality, making it acceptable and usable by the winning theologies, which
were gradually establishing themselves.
However, in the following centuries, the same Hebrew scholars also worked
towards generating desirable concordances. During the Middle Ages, the Roman
Church had the presumption, often realized, of defining which biblical truths
were correct and, contrary to this, which ones had to be corrected by Hebrew
thinking itself.
The Vatican hierarchy partially achieved its objectives by threatening
retaliation against those practicing Judaism who disagreed with its considered
correct ideas. The theoretical elaboration made by the rabbis themselves was
subject to analysis and, when necessary, persecution.
Also in this socio-cultural context, or rather, in this extremely dangerous
historical situation, spiritualistic elaborations that we know were matured and
imposed. Thus, certainties were born that, when examined carefully, reveal
themselves for what they are: mere products of fantasy, devoid of any biblical
foundation. In fact, theology is a peculiar form of thinking: it creates and
produces the idea of God, defines some possible specifications, and then spends
centuries discussing what it has itself elaborated. It is essentially self-referential:
not having a concrete object of study at its disposal, since God cannot be
considered as such, it does nothing but study itself and what it elaborates.
The theologian Amin Kreiner writes that nobody knows anything about
God, which is an obvious evidence that nobody can deny (op. cit. in the
Bibliography). Miguel "de Unamuno - Spanish thinker, tormented and extremely
insightful, former rector of the University of Salamanca - provides an
exceptionally adequate and concise analysis of the origin and motivations of
theological thought when he writes that '[...] theology is born from the
imagination placed in the service of life that wants to be immortal' (From the
Tragic Sense of Life)." São Paulo, Martins Editora, 1996). In other words, Man
does not want to hear that everything ends with death and, therefore, theology
develops a response that establishes the foundations of the idea of God, which it
itself produces. This is a statement that ends up being completely in agreement
with what the current Dalai Lama says, according to which "every form of
religion is born with the goal of providing an answer to the mother of all
agonies: the fear of death."
Theologians, ideologues, supposed esoteric masters, mystics of various
types and origins have acted for centuries as if they were collaborating with each
other - sometimes silently and automatically, other times consciously complicit -
to spread the same message regarding the Bible. In this way, what was initially a
simple narration of historical and concrete events concerning Humanity and the
Elohim who participated in genetic engineering - about which I wrote
extensively in the book entitled "Non c'è creazione nella Bibbia" [There is no
creation in the Bible] and the unique relationship between one of them, Yahweh,
and that people - was transformed into the dogmatic foundation of a religious
thought that still directly or indirectly influences over two billion people today.
In addition to the various aspects that refer to the contents, which I will
discuss later, the main falsehood – large, enormous – which was intelligently
elaborated and spread, until it became a deeply rooted certainty in souls, is as
follows: the Bible is a text that uses a cryptic language full of deep, hidden
spiritual truths, presented in an allegorical, metaphorical manner, often with an
initiatic language that requires interpretations and knowledge that are not
available or accessible to everyone.
Finally, according to this artificial vision that was applied, the work of an
exegete should consist of digging deeply into the text, searching for hidden
meanings that are reserved for those who have the ability to understand, and to
whom, not coincidentally, the right to disclose is then attributed, according to
modalities and times that he always decides.
Years of translating from Masoretic Hebrew to Edizioni San Paolo have
generated in me the diametrically opposite conviction. In my opinion, the true
work of an exegete, free from dogmatic conditioning, does not foresee the
Researching hidden meanings is not about discovering them, but rather about
liberating the biblical text from all those theological, ideological, esoteric, and
spiritual superstructures that have been artificially constructed over the
centuries. Therefore, this is my working hypothesis.
I repeat that it is a hypothesis - I leave the supposed truths to the dogmatic
ones -, for which I demand the same rights granted to the other keys of
interpretation, particularly in the face of a truly evident fact: none of the so-
called "traditions" possesses the truth, given that the disagreements among them
remain open, profound, often violent, and in any case, irreparable.
All "traditional" doctrines share a single basic fact: they were developed to
hide the true textual evidence, often unpleasant, in no way spiritual, and
therefore unacceptable to those whose purpose is not truth but the construction
of a system of control over every mind and the entire social context.
The textual reality is before our eyes, on the surface, and, precisely for this
reason, it was covered by thick layers of inventions and elaborations, enriched
by mystical and hazy attributions. This was done because, on that history,
known in its authentic written substance, religions could not have been built, nor
nationalistic ideologies, nor systems of power.
 The Bible has to be considered for what it is,
namely, one of the many books written by
Humanity.
Years of translations have matured this conviction in me. It is one among
many books written by the peoples of the past.
One among many books where the essential elements of the history of
mankind are contained, elements that, as we will briefly say, belong to the
narratives of the peoples of all continents of the Earth.
Therefore, the Bible is not a unique text, nor is it the original source of the
Narrations from other peoples, as claimed by some ideologists who intend to put
knowledge at the service of their own conviction - the truth is actually the
opposite, as we will see shortly.
This is the reason that determined the need to create convenient
superstructures, including the false idea that the Bible contains hidden
metaphysical truths and mysteries leading to the divine realm. None of this is
found in that book, the ancient biblical authors did not speak of God or religion,
but rather narrated a story with the linguistic and cultural tools they had at their
disposal.
Considering the way in which the Bible was born, we necessarily have to
abandon any pretension of obtaining indisputable truths, even less those absolute
truths that determine the conditioning of consciences by structures of power or
even by any supposed master. With the Bible, we have to become aware of one
reality: we can only "pretend that...". Pretend that the authors wanted to tell us a
story, whose interest arises from the fact that the fundamental elements, those
that deal with the origin of Humanity, substantially correspond to the narratives
of other peoples. Those passages can, and should, be examined with great
interest because they contain information outside of the direct relationship
between Yahweh, the hypothetical God, and that people, since they refer to all
of humanity and do not originally contain instructions for a specific group of
individuals.
"Making believe that..." we have to take into consideration the statements
that go against the dominant dogmatism. For example, the same professor writes
that most modern biblical scholars from the Rabbinical Assembly believe that
there was never any Abraham; and that many doubt the historical existence of
Moses himself.
Without the aforementioned conditioning, these scholars have no difficulty
in writing that when biblical events of Abraham and Moses occurred, assuming
they truly lived, the Hebrew people and language did not yet exist. We do not
know what language they spoke, as Abraham lived in the land of Sumer, and
Moses, as the Bible states, was an Egyptian (Ex. 2:19). Probably, Abraham
spoke some form of Akkadian, and Moses presumably communicated in the
Egyptian language of his time.
 Regarding this matter, we have to remember that the scholars Roger and
Messod Sabbah, who come from a rabbinical family, analyzing the Targum, the
Bible written in Aramaic, come to completely different conclusions from those
deduced from the study of the Massoretic Bible; conclusions that are decidedly
disorienting for the holders and disseminators of certainties, since the resulting
narrative completely subverts what is thought to be known about the events of
the Hebrew people (op. cit. in the Bibliography). Just think that in those texts
(Ex. 2:6-7) it is written that Moses was a child of the Yahud, while in the
Massoretic code the daughter of Pharaoh who finds the basket with the child
says - according to the so-called guardians of the Hebrew tradition - that he was
a child of the Hebrews. The term "yahud" identifies a specific caste of priests
during the period of Pharaoh Akhenaten, therefore Moses would have been one
of them. According to the Sabbah brothers, the term "yahud" was used, through
an elaboration as fanciful as false, to create the myth of the tribe of Judas. In the
Book of Exodus, 5:3, it is Moses himself, always in the Targum, who affirms
that he was sent by the Elohim, God of the yahudim - plural of yahud - while,
once again, the masoretes write that it was the Elohim of the Hebrews who sent
him to the pharaoh.
However, there is an even more disorienting revelation that arises from the
work done by the Massoretes on the Aramaic Bible: those who fled with Moses
from Egypt were all exclusively Egyptians, belonging to three social castes - the
high military class, the priestly caste, and the lower class. Therefore, they were
not Hebrews, who at that time did not yet exist as a defined ethnic identity, as
confirmed by Lee I. Leine, professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University
in Jerusalem, who reveals how that identity is indeed the result of a process that
must have taken a long time to develop.
And it is always the open rabbinical minds, not conditioned by notoriously
invented theologies and ideologies, that are not ashamed to openly acknowledge
that, as in the accepted canons themselves, there are several difficulties of
understanding that were already evident among ancient commentators and have
persisted for centuries without finding satisfactory and consensus conclusions.
The professor Jacob Milgrom, professor emeritus of Biblical Studies at the
University of California, Berkeley, documents that in Hebrew thought there
coexist at least two currents with different positions regarding the principles and
rules contained in the Mosaic law: the minimalist current, sustaining that
Yahweh provided only the general principles of legislation that the people must
follow, and the maximalist current, which asserts, on the contrary, that within
the Mosaic law there are detailed rules and procedures that Yahweh directly
revealed. Mount Sinai was revealed to Moses the complete body of laws, with
all the details. The professor himself reminds that the difficulties of
understanding various precepts are so many that it becomes necessary to work
on interpretation and application - something quite strange, if we think that they
were transmitted directly by God. He gives as an example a midrash (Mid.
Psalms 12:4; cf. BT Hag. 3b), where Moses talks to Yahweh. Moses, not
understanding the meaning of some norms, asks how the people will be able to
understand the true meaning of the laws. Yahweh responds in a truly surprising
way: "You must follow the majority. When the majority declares that something
is pure, it is pure, and when it declares that it is impure, it is impure."
Certainly, we would not expect such an indication from a God, from whom
there should be clarification about behavioral norms, especially because we
know well how majorities function, mainly due to the changes they are subject
to due to the people who compose them. As a consequence of this, the meaning
of the laws that many insist on considering divine and therefore indisputable
would also change with the composition of majorities.
Sir, the entire Bible clearly makes us understand that the individual
called Yahweh was not, thankfully, God.
Dogmatism will have to reflect seriously - or rather, unfortunately, we must
use the conditional tense and say that it "would" have to reflect - because we
know well that dogmatists often refuse to do so. However, there are elements to
seriously meditate upon, which come even from cultural environments that can
be considered beyond reproach, such as biblical archaeology, administered by
Hebrew scholars from Israeli universities, and like the work of that sector of the
rabbinate that studies, researches, and disseminates free knowledge, contrary to
the theological and ideological-nationalistic conditioning that determined the
elaboration and secular dissemination of falsehoods presented as absolute and
unquestionable truths. Some information comes from these free cultural
environments, in contrast to the more common and widespread beliefs.
It happened, indeed, the conquest of the land of Canaan by those who
followed Moses (assuming that he existed) and, after him, Joshua.
Modern Israeli archaeology argues that the epic narrative of the conquest of
Jericho is probably a religious fable, completely unsupported by any
archaeological findings. In fact, archaeological excavations have revealed during
the purported conquest of the city of Jericho, it is presumed that it was not
surrounded by walls.
And, even more: did the great kingdoms of David and Solomon really exist?
According to archeological evidence, these would have been nothing more than
two small local autonomous units, little larger than a tribal kingdom, upon which
the legend we know was successively constructed, with the objective of
providing the Hebrew people with a type of foundational myth that could be
compared with those of other more well-known and well-documented kingdoms.
As I usually say in my conferences, these rabbis also affirm that the biblical
Flood was not universal but rather a localized event. Just think that, when Noah
reached dry land, free from the waters, he took a large number of animals and
burned them as a sacrifice to the Elohim, offering them as a gift (Gen. 8:20, we
will later understand who the Elohim were and why the smoke was pleasing to
them). I've always wondered why he burned the animals he had worked so hard
to save and shelter in the ark... Wouldn't it be ridiculous for that reason alone?
Obviously, he found more animals outside when he came down - those that had
not been affected by that limited flood.
 However, once again, it is the rabbis who reveal the lack of Egyptian
documents attesting to a massive presence of Hebrews in that land. And there
are even fewer testimonies of a state of slavery. In relation to this, I cite an
example: when they are preparing to leave the country, Yahweh imposes that all
the gold possible be given to him (Genesis 11:2).
So, is it plausible for slaves to ask for such a thing from their own masters
when they are about to leave? Absolutely not, the very idea itself is ridiculous.
Furthermore, during their stay in the desert, those people often lamented
their previous situation, contrasting it sharply with the one in which Moses
forced them to live. In the end, they often complained about the sad conditions
they were in and repeated that, without a doubt, they were better off before,
while the mythical narrative would like to describe them as cruelly exploited
slaves (Ex. 13).
The preachers who stubbornly insist on saying that the Bible does not make
mistakes because it is inspired by God will have to accept reality, as they are
fighting, albeit with perseverance, in a war that is already lost.
It is obvious that many believers, whether Jews or Christians, do not accept
to see their own beliefs questioned, but studies continue and the... evidence
becomes increasingly clear and eloquent. The naked reality and revealed history
may not be pleasing, but they must not continue to be hidden. Despite the
immediate and instinctive reaction that leads many to aggressively revolt against
what is coming to light, even the stubborn believers of dogma will inevitably
recognize the historical reality that is evident in the Bible itself.
Therefore, what I speak of is not a "discovery" but a simple reaffirmation of
what is already clear in the Bible, which is sufficient to not cover it with a veil
of mystery. If we want to talk about a "discovery," we can use this term in its
truest meaning, which is the elimination of elements of confusion that have been
artificially placed upon it. It is precisely the studies conducted by free
individuals that will pave the way for the future, individuals who are above any
suspicion and who are Israeli archaeologists, professors of History at the
universities of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, hundreds of rabbis, alternative
researchers not conditioned by the need to defend advantageous positions...
All these elements of uncertainty, useful and valuable, and all these new
historical and scientific acquisitions, allow me to ratify what I have been saying
for many years:
We only have one of the possible Bibles, but since we have been told that
this is the "true," "inspired by God" one, let us, at least, try to understand
what it tells us, freeing it from those conceptual and religious
superstructures that I mentioned earlier.
The narration of origins, associated with similar stories from other peoples,
is the fundamental element of interest that persists. The fact that the kingdoms of
David and Solomon did not exist in the exalting form in which they were
presented to us does not interest us much, after all. What matters to us are the
events of the primordial moment, because it is from them that we must start to
rewrite the history of humanity, seeing their extraordinary vicissitudes
intermingling indissolubly with the birth and elaboration of forms of thought,
from which great structures and ideological movements originate. The latter
have the need to keep the unsustainable biblical vision alive, and they are
precisely the ones who try to resist and block the cultural revolution that is
happening.
Later on, we will make a hypothetical reconstruction of how this
interweaving can be formed, either through deliberate action or through
mechanisms that are established almost automatically. Based on these
considerations, this work dedicates a space to fundamental themes, especially,
and in every aspect of our lives, whether we acknowledge Him or not. He is not
distant or disconnected from us, but rather actively involved in our existence.
Additionally, God's presence can be felt and experienced by those who have a
relationship with Him. So, to all those who believe in God, let us remember that
He is always with us.
I clarify that the existence of God is not the subject of my work. I am
concerned with the Bible, and if I state that it does not speak of God, it is not
because I intend to deny his existence. I simply say that that book does not refer
to him. The existence or non-existence of God does not depend - or should not
depend - on a book, because that would be dramatic, especially when it is known
how that book was formed over the centuries.
 Elohim, Yahweh, and the inconsistencies of
dogmatic theses.
Wishing to avoid misunderstandings, I reaffirm that the concepts of true and
false do not represent, in an absolute sense, the truth - which does not belong to
me and therefore, I do not speak about it. However, I am referring to what is
contained in the biblical text and what is falsely attributed to it.
Over these years of translations and publications, the evident falsehoods,
distortions, artful interpretations, and intentionally subjected philological
analyses to doctrinal, theological, and ideological demands have become
apparent to me. In fact, we must not overlook that the grammatical rules applied
in biblical Hebrew were elaborated later by the very grammarians who then
enthusiastically discuss them, often not agreeing with their own formulations
and applications. Regarding this, we can read the writings of academic scholars
such as Professor Garbini, or the debates in which James Washington Watts,
O.L. Barnes, Benjamin Wills Newton, and so on participate. Even before them,
already in the 2nd century AD, rabbis like Akiva and Ishmael discussed even
about the function and relevance of certain letters like "vav," without reaching
an agreement.
Regarding this, we can read the writings of academic scholars such as
Professor Garbini, or the debates in which James Washington Watts, O.L.
Barnes, Benjamin Wills Newton, and so on participate. Even before them,
already in the 2nd century AD, rabbis like Akiva and Ishmael discussed even
about the function and relevance of certain letters like "vav," without reaching
an agreement. Due to an absolute inequality between the two sexes, which still
persists dramatically today in orthodox circles condemned by the majority of
Hebrew culture, it was fundamentally women who were punished for these
occasional transgressions. In this case, Rabbi Akiva states that the specific use
of the letter "vav" in the verse indicated that the punishment should also be
applied to married women, while the Talmud limited the application to young
brides. His opponent, Rabbi Ishmael, accused him of attributing a non-existent
value to the consonants "vav," which he, on the contrary, defined as
"superfluous."
Rabbi Joel Roth, professor of Talmudic and Judaic Law at the Jewish
Theological Seminary in New York, reminds us that for Rabbi Akiva, each letter
of the Torah did not exclusively possess linguistic value, as the style and
arrangement of the letters contained and concealed deeper messages. For Rabbi
Ishmael, however, it was the opposite: the language of the Torah was
exclusively human, and therefore the style, grammar, and general use of
language did not need to be interpreted as instruments for conveying hidden or
specific divine messages.
This last way of understanding the text coincides with the statements
mentioned by Professor Jeffrey H. Tigay, Emeritus A. M. Ellis, professor of
Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, about the fact that the Torah is not metaphorical.
Finally, as we can see, we must take into account the doubts, endless
uncertainties, and continuous controversies within the cultural sphere itself,
where, on the contrary, certainty would be expected.
Free-thinkers embrace this as a strongly positive element, as where there is
doubt and questioning, dogmatic certainties immediately lose - or, rather, should
lose for sensible individuals - all reasons to exist, because they are devoid of the
necessary foundations to be accepted unanimously.
In the face of dogmatic obscurantism, the existence of a dynamic dialectic
bears witness to the presence and vitality of an open world, documenting the
mental attitude of scholars who are not corrupted by theological and/or
ideological dogmatism. This dogmatism, in opposition, has conditioned the
majority of thought professed in the text we are dealing with for many centuries.
The philological diatribes should be seen from the perspective of an element as
fundamental as it is unknown or omitted, as mentioned by Professor Garbini, a
professor of Semitic Philosophy at La Sapienza University and a member of the
National Academy of Lincei, both in Rome. According to him, the Massoretes
did not act based on linguistic and grammatical foundations, that is, they did not
write taking into consideration the pre-established rules, but on bases and,
mainly, with purely ideological and theological intentions, also because of the
reasons we exposed above, always remembering that it could be a matter of life
or death for the Hebrew people.
Therefore, what was omitted with theological, occult, esoteric, mystical, and
also philological fictions?
For further understanding of each topic, I refer to the previous works where
they are analyzed in detail, with Hebrew verses arranged alongside their
respective translations and comments.
The book that will forever change our ideas about the Bible (2010);
The alien god of the Bible (2011);
There is no creation in the Bible (2012).
In this "keyboard-made gym," I make several accurate and clear statements,
aware of their consequences.
The Bible does not speak of God.
The Bible is not a religious book, as publicly stated by Hebrew philologists
who intervene on the internet, in forums and blogs, even those whose declared
objective is to confront the spread of this literal reading key of mine, which
questions the entire ideological and theological system we are talking about, and
which I put alongside the traditional one. All of this offers readers useful
opportunities for reflection to build their own ideas, personal and free from
schematism, where the whole biblical question has been confined.
The Bible narrates the story of the relationship between a
colonizer/governor named Yahweh and a group of people whom he
transformed into a nation, giving them an identity through hard work. The part
of the Bible that narrates the earliest historical events – which the biblical
authors reproduced from much older Sumerian-Akkadian narratives – is
essentially a chronicle that describes the origins of Humanity, the formation of a
special ethnic group, and the subsequent experiences of a people who
established a relationship/alliance with one of the Elohim, known precisely by
the name Yahweh.
This individual, far from being the spiritual, transcendent God, the creator of
heaven and earth, was made of flesh and bones and belonged to a group of
colonizers/governors/watchers, which the Bible refers to by the name Elohim.
"In the Bibles we have in our homes, we find the term 'God' (singular) as the equivalent
of the word Elohim (plural), which appears in the Hebrew text. When we come across the
term in our Bibles "Lord" or "Eternal," in Hebrew, appears as Yahweh. As I have already
emphasized, it is not by chance that the Roman Church wants to gradually abandon this
term, making it less common.
It is necessary to mention also that the name Yahweh appears in biblical
stories when the Hebrew language did not yet exist, and that it was written many
centuries after it was spoken, at best three centuries later, using only the
consonants, with the vocal sounds added around 1700 years later. The Bible
narrates the story of the relationship between this individual and a people who
were entrusted to him (in Dt. 32:8 et seq.), where it is stated that Elyon
distributed his own inheritances (assignments) among the nations and
determined the boundaries of the peoples.
The Hebrew verse (Dt. 32:9) does not say that it was Yahweh who chose, as
is usually believed, but rather that the part that was given to him corresponded to
that people. This suggests that he should not even be among the most important
and influential entities.
As evidence of this, I mention the translation by the Jewish Publication
Society, which, referring to the people that was assigned to him, mentions
explicitly: "He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness."
Therefore, he found his portion, cheleq, scattered in the desert. The version
made by the Hebrew translators leaves no room for doubt: the portion that
Yahweh received from Elyon was not important. The latter is a Hebrew term
that is translated as "Most High" in the Bible, but literally means "the one who is
above" and is used, for example, to indicate the upper part of a city (Gen. 16:5),
or a room that is in an elevated position relative to others (Ezek. 41:7). The use
of the absolute superlative "Most High" is forcibly theological. Elyon was the
commander and, as such, defined the boundaries of nations, assigning territories
to various nations.
As proof of this, I cite the translation from the Jewish Publication Society,
which, referring to the people assigned to it, mentions explicitly: "He found him
in a desert land, in a barren and howling waste." Therefore, he found his portion,
cheleq, scattered in the desert. The version made by the Hebrew translators
leaves no room for doubt: the portion that Yahweh received from Elyon was not
important. Elyon is a Hebrew term that is translated in Bibles as "Most High,"
but literally means "the one who is on top" and is used, for example, to indicate
the upper part of a city (Genesis 16:5) or a room that is in an elevated position
compared to the others (Ezekiel 41:7). The use of the absolute superlative "Most
High" is revealed to be forcefully theological. Elyon was the commander and, as
such, defined the boundaries of the peoples, assigning territories to various
nations.
Therefore, I recall Plato and the dialogue between Critias and Timaeus,
when he mentions that the theoi (gods) had what they wanted after a
subdivision. They then populated their own districts and dedicated themselves to
their herds, according to their own will. Once again, Plato shows that the theoi
had their responsibilities in different places. This is exactly what we extract from
the Bible from Dt. 32:8 and following, as we notice the extraordinary
correspondence with the figure of the good shepherd, which we frequently find
in the Psalms. An interesting fact: while Critias speaks of collaboration among
the theoi, in the Bible it is explicitly stated that Yahweh did everything alone,
without the help of the other Elohim (Dt. 32:12).
Being exclusively a "man of war" (Exodus 15:3), he probably was not
willing to tolerate interference in his decisions, nor were his objectives perhaps
confessional or, at least, explainable sharable. This is clear to those who read
with a free mind because, on the other hand, we know that monotheistic
theologies and ideologies must necessarily assert that Elyon and Yahweh are
two names that identify the same God, along with the plural Elohim.
In this way, we try to follow the monotheists on their journey and, reading
the verses, we immediately discover that in Dt. 32:8-10 we have a more than
curious situation: according to traditional doctrine, God, with the name Elyon,
defines and divides territories and nations; however, the same God, but now
with the name Yahweh, attributes to himself a small and insignificant part
among these peoples. Essentially, according to the doctrine, this God creates all
of Humanity, but decides to only concern himself with a part of it. If everything
ended here, we could pretend to accept the idea that this God - with choices that
are absolutely strange and not universal at all - for unfathomable reasons, was
exclusively interested in that people scattered in a desert territory and, in the
mysterious inscrutability of his thoughts, simultaneously lost interest in other
peoples.
The answer is immediate, evidently, allowing us to move on to the lack of
credibility of the theological/ideological doctrine that is based on "tradition".
Following the monotheistic reasoning, we see that the entire biblical narrative is
essentially the account of a story whose absurdity is unprecedented, for this
supposed God named Yahweh established a privileged alliance with a people
who use as a fighting force to conquer, in a continuous bloodbath, the territories
that he himself, under the name of Elyon, had not automatically assigned to
himself when he defined the borders of nations. According to theology, we
would have the following unacceptable extravagance: at the beginning, that
God, as Elyon, divides the Earth andassigns to itself, exclusively, a territory and
a people; then, in quality of Yahweh, launches a fierce military conquest of other
territories which, like Elyon, he had not attributed it to himself. And to do this,
as we will see in the following pages, does not hesitate, with the name of
Yahweh, to exterminate completely people whose only fault was occupying the
territories he himself, as Elyon, had destined them and who later, like Yahweh, I
wanted to take them away.
Isn't this supposedly unique, omnipotent, omniscient God very strange?
Isn't this type of behavior absolutely incomprehensible?
Doesn't it at least seem unbalanced? Or, should we even say, completely
pathological? Being omniscient, I could not think ahead and be with everything
from the beginning, without forcing his people to massacre thousands of people
afterwards. innocent people, to occupy a territory that he had forgotten to assign
to himself same?
If he was a universal God, why make men fight and force them to stain
themselves with thousands of murders, rapes and all types of violence towards
other men and women, whom Had he himself allocated those lands, which he
then decided to conquer? Couldn't have also attributed to other peoples, since in
the monotheistic view he did not need to discuss it with someone more?
The wise or learned– in the absurd logic that literally accepts what pleases
them and covers up what they do not like – they will say that in these verses
there are allegories, metaphors, mystical or esoteric meanings. I, on the contrary,
I prefer to “pretend that…” the biblical authors told us the simple events of
colonizers who divided a territory among themselves, and who then they fought
to expand their own spheres of influence. This “doing account” does not ask for
specific reading keys and, in addition, it has another advantage: is absolutely
consistent with the entire biblical story and with the narratives of other peoples.
In fact, we will see later what the specific concept of murder of Yahweh but,
above all, we will understand that he did not “create” the heavens, nor the earth,
nor even Man.
If we get rid of theological and ideological dogmatism, the whole situation
will become presents clear and coherent. This is because Elyon is not a disturbed
God mentally, but the lord of the empire of the Elohim, and as such divides the
nations. At that juncture they were attributed to Yahweh, one of the Elohim, a
people and a territory that did not satisfy him. Therefore, he prepares a series of
actions with the ultimate objective of conquering a better land and expanding its
domains, or That is, he behaved like a simple conqueror and governor who
intended to expand its territorial power.
The monotheistic inconsistencies, already obvious in themselves, find
further evidence in the immediately following passage (Dt. 32:12), which only
the voluntary blindness to which the dogmatists condemn themselves prevents
them from having a clear and clear understanding. This passage has already been
cited before, but it is worth dwelling on it for a moment longer, given the
importance of contradicting the supposed biblical monotheism. The verse
narrates the following: "Yahweh leads that people alone, he has no foreign El
with him." I specify that El is the singular of Elohim, and I ask: what other
El/Elohim could or should be with him, since, according to the monotheists,
Elyon/Yahweh/Elohim undeniably indicate the one God?
What is the meaning of that verse, except to make it clear that the Elohim
called Yahweh did everything alone, without relying on the collaboration of his
colleagues? To whom, evidently, according to the biblical author, could he have
asked for help to attend to those afflicted people in the desolation of an empty
desert?
With that said, I return to the topic of the "lecture made with the keyboard"
to remind that Yahweh is the name by which He Himself presented Himself to
Moses, while to Abraham He was El-Shaddai, the El (singular of Elohim), that
is, "the High One of the mountain," translated by Howard Avruhm Addison,
assistant professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, who seems to not take
into consideration the original value of the shd or shdd roots, which contain
concepts of violence and devastation.
The two different names, and some other elements that I am not analyzing at
this moment, even raise doubts about the fact that it was the same individual.
However, I want to assume that it was the same, and I take note that, just like he
spoke face to face with Moses, he presents himself to Abraham as a simple man
who eats, drinks, walks, gets tired, gets dirty, needs to rest, wash, etc. (Genesis
18). The same thing happens with Gideon. (Judges 6): Yahweh also appeared
before him in his physicality as a biped, made of flesh and bone, but the
interesting aspect of the narrative is that Gideon does not recognize him and asks
for proof of his identity. In that passage, we even have the use of a verb that
represents Yahweh sitting down to wait for Gideon's return, who had gone to get
food for that necessary verification. When Gideon returned home, he placed the
meat and bread on a rock, poured the broth over them, and the helper of
Yahweh, extending a small staff-like instrument, incinerated everything, which
was the proof of their identity. As we can see, it is an exclusively mechanical,
technological proof, in no way spiritual, miraculous, or metaphysical.
On the other hand, it is Hebrew philology itself that writes that all the so-
called miracles described in the Bible are nothing more than technological
operations that astounded people. Regarding this, Hebrew opinion forums on the
internet can be consulted. Therefore, nothing supernatural, as well deduced from
the so-called miracle of Elijah, analyzed in its extraordinary peculiarity in my
previously mentioned works, as in this case it was chemistry and thermal energy
that produced the desired effects. This passage of Gideon, contained in the Book
of Judges, along with the narration of Abraham's encounter with Yahweh and
the two angels (Genesis 18), and Moses near the so-called burning bush, clearly
explains that Yahweh often moved accompanied by one or two assistants,
attentive and ready to carry out his orders.
This is perfectly in line with the military organization, which anticipated
camps like those seen by Jacob in Genesis 32 and commented on by Rashi of
Troyes, one of the greatest Hebrew exegetes, who admitted the presence of two
ascending formations of malachim to defend a border that was located in the
corresponding territory, more or less, to present-day Transjordan (op. cit. in the
Bibliography). As a commander, he therefore had someone to assist him in
immediately implementing his orders. Personally, I have difficulty believing that
the omnipotent God would have this type of requirement.
The individual we know as Yahweh is not, in fact, God, but one of the Elohim, and he
reaffirms this every time he presents himself, defining himself as the exclusive Elohim of
that people and not of other nations.
The formula "the Elohim of Israel" is constantly repeated, and testifies to the
need to present an exact certification, as if it were a type of identification
document in advance. He always felt the need to remind that it was the Elohim
who had called Abraham from the land of Sumer, where he lived, in order to
take him to Canaan to fight. It was he who had terrified Isaac with the staging of
the false sacrifice, and then returned to evaluate the extent of Abraham's
faithfulness, even though as God, he should have known it, without the need to
devise such a dramatic scene. Isn't it by chance that God reads into the heart of
Man? But we already understand that he was not God.
He was, therefore, the Elohim of a people who had no mandate to govern
other peoples and who also never succeeded in doing so, only managing to
exterminate them or at least attempt to do so when they occupied the territories
that interested him. He was, therefore, an Elohim (plural), just as we would say
that Lorenzo the Magnificent was one of the Medicis (plural).
These Elohim were a caste of individuals who acted under the command of
Elyon, a term that, as mentioned before, means "the one who is on top",
"superior", and which translations use with the epithet "Most High". Under their
command, during the period of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), the planet was divided
into governorships (Deuteronomy 32:8).
Here we have an example of the fascination exerted by the concrete reality
of the Bible and, at the same time, a testimony of the variations, or rather,
adjustments made by the Masoretes with the intention of spreading an ideology
built exclusively on theological foundations, further proving that religion asks
for belief in one of the possible Bibles. We have two passages that, despite
belonging to different books, are astonishingly similar. The book of Genesis tells
us that, in the time of Peleg, the Earth It was divided - Peleg was called so
precisely because the root plg divides like that - and in Deuteronomy, the
authors remind that the division was made by Elyon himself, who distributed the
territories after counting the children of Israel. We can understand the purpose of
this statement, to exalt the people of Israel; however, it is illogical and, mainly,
was contradicted shortly afterwards, since the Land was not actually assigned to
any of them, but to the Elohim, or their representatives, intermediaries,
guardians, that is, the malakims whom we will discuss later. It was divided -
Peleg was called so precisely because the root plg divides like that - and in
Deuteronomy, the authors remind that the division was made by Elyon himself,
who distributed the territories after counting the children of Israel. We can
understand the purpose of this statement, to exalt the people of Israel; however,
it is illogical and, mainly, was contradicted shortly afterwards, since the Land
was not actually assigned to any of them, but to the Elohim, or their
representatives, intermediaries, guardians, that is, the malakims whom we will
discuss later.
It is de facto stated that, at the time of this division, Yahweh was assigned
the people he found in the desert. Therefore, the number of the children of Israel
had no importance in that specific territorial assignment. The intentional
falsehood of the Massoretes, which produced the textual deception, is well-
documented in the oldest, least manipulated, and least idealized codes, such as
the Septuagint, where it is clearly written that the division and its relative
distributions were made by Elyon according to the number of the so-called
angels, or melachim - the intermediaries - who acted on the orders of the
Elohim, and not according to the quantity of the children of Israel.
This variation is also confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as revealed by N.P.
Lemche in Ancient Israel. A New History of Israelite Society, Sheffield
Academic Press, 1988: "[...] the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (32:8-9), in a
fragment from Qumran, proclaims that, 'when Elyon assigned the nations their
heritage, when he separated the sons of men, he determined the boundaries of
the peoples according to the number of the sons of Elohim, and the portion of
the Lord was Jacob, Israel is the inheritance that belongs to him'."
I open a parenthetical statement to observe that the very Masoretes, the so-
called guardians of tradition, did not respect the older writings they worked
with, varying the text according to the messages that had to be conveyed in that
era. We have seen before that there are still Hebrew exegeses today that modify
the Masoretic version. At this point, we ask ourselves: how many "traditions"
exist? In which one should we believe? How can a text be "sacred" when
everyone felt, and still feels, entitled to intervene, modify, and even deny the
validity of previous versions?
Resuming the speech, I ask myself: how can one not immediately think of
the Sumerian-Akkadian narratives, which recall the moment when the power
from heaven passed to earth?
Does the Bible recount the same event here? In other words, does it recall
the time when the chief of chiefs subdivided and distributed command to his
representatives who were on our planet?
An interesting element should not go unnoticed: the term Elyon in the Bible
substantially carries the same meaning as Anu, present in the cuneiform tablets, where both
refer to the concept of being high, being above, as the syllable "an" was pictographically
represented by a star. In this case, do both names indicate the lord of the empire?
Most command structures generally provide that the supreme commander
personally decides on the modalities of power distribution. Reading the Bible,
we can even understand how, at that time, Yahweh had a relatively unimportant
participation, certainly less significant than that of his colleagues, who
successively governed over great civilizations such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, the
Indus Valley, Central and South America, etc.
Allowing thoughts to flow freely, one curiosity leads to another: the custom
of placing specific references to their own functions or the events that
accompanied their births in the names of characters is necessary for us to try to
understand what, unfortunately, the Bible does not narrate with the abundance of
details we would like to find. For example, Elyon/Anu indicates the function of
commander, someone who lived far away from planet Earth, according to the
cuneiform tablet NBC 11 108, cited and analyzed in Non c'è creazione nella
Bibbia. He had a celestial dwelling where vegetation did not grow. It is not
difficult to imagine that he needed to descend to Earth a few times to personally
control the situation and then align the functional and operational structures in
the hierarchical empire over the planet.
In the fifth chapter of the Book of Genesis, we find a very interesting
indication. A descendant of Adam and Eve, about whom we will speak later -
called Jared, the root of this name comes from the verb "iarad" which means "to
descend". Therefore, we ask ourselves: did such an important and significant
descent occur during Jared's time to have been fixed in the name of this
patriarch? Who descended during that period? Perhaps the emperor himself?
Certainly something important happened, precisely for Jared's family. His
son Enoch, in fact, is mentioned in the same chapter as the patriarch who
"walked with the Elohim" and claimed a very special relationship and
interaction with them. The Book of Enoch, one of the biblical texts that
Christians with Roman tradition are not supposed to believe as true, but rather
are considered canonical and accepted by Coptic Christians, highlights how
Enoch was taken on various flights during which he reached the dwelling of the
supreme commander. How were special knowledge related to various fields of
knowledge transmitted to you?
That descent, remembered in the name of Jarede, was truly very special and
was followed by a new departure, in which Enoch himself was involved. In fact,
the Bible tells us that the patriarch departed with the Elohim and was never seen
again (Gen. 5:24).
Repeating a concept expressed previously, I observe that the possible Bibles,
including those that have been declared implausible, narrate stories that, when
viewed in their realities, construct a coherent mosaic, even in the denounced
absence of an abundance of details, documentary richness, and coherence of
exposition. Unfortunately for us, this type of requirement did not exist among
many of the various authors of the biblical texts. Above all, we will never know
what would have happened if many of these missing pieces, which over the
centuries have disappeared, were present in those writings, once their very
explicit contents would have annulled the efforts of those who wanted and were
able to construct, based on this history, various systems of theological and
ideological power that we know as, for example, the 11 books I mentioned
earlier. We will now have the opportunity to ask some fundamental questions.
 Who were these Elohim who were
transformed into God? What were their
characteristics and how did they act?
In this chapter, we summarize and complement with new elements the
fundamental characteristics, which are widely documented in the previously
mentioned books, on which we rely to thoroughly examine the subject.
Meanwhile, I clarify that I do not translate the term because nobody knows its
meaning; however, the dogmatic currents have no doubts: for them, it means
God, even though that plural word is translated in various ways, precisely
because of the true ignorance that surrounds it, and for this reason, I believe it is
more correct to substitute it. for an expression like "those individuals"
The impossibility of having a convincing translation is a fate that the term
Elohim shares with the name Yahweh, which also has an unknown meaning and,
therefore, is translated in various ways, including the possibility of
understanding it as a simple exclamation, such as "It is him!" In fact, this is what
Rabbi Howard Avruhm, previously mentioned, says, affirming that, according to
some biblical scholars, it could be an expression uttered when they saw him
coming.
The mental openness of these scholars we mention reminds us of the
countless fanciful and mystical elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed
God. We define them as fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point
out that, despite the variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even
magical effectiveness of the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the
meaning and origin even of the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in
what language it was pronounced, with what words, and whether it was
originally composed of consonants which were later used for transcription... The
mental openness of these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless
fanciful and mystical elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We
define them as fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that,
despite the variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical
effectiveness of the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning
and origin even of the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what
language it was pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally
composed of consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental
openness of these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and
mystical elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them
as fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... The mental openness of
these scholars we mention reminds us of the countless fanciful and mystical
elaborations about the 72 names of the supposed God. We define them as
fanciful without intending to offend, but simply to point out that, despite the
variegated elaboration and supposed functional or even magical effectiveness of
the 72 names, the reality is that we do not know the meaning and origin even of
the first name, Yahweh, because we do not know in what language it was
pronounced, with what words, and whether it was originally composed of
consonants which were later used for transcription... Certainly, however, we
know that it was not Moses' people who first heard him or knew him. The
epigraphy of the Middle East documents that the people of that region knew that
name long before the appearance of the one who later assumed the Israeli
identity. The nations of the Middle East, from the second millennium BC, knew
that the territory was governed by an individual named yhw, or yw, or ywh, and
that he even had a companion known as Ashera, whom the Hebrews of the
colony of Elephantine in Egypt, even after many centuries, called Anat-Yahwu.
We have observed here that the war for control of biblical content was won
by the Hebrew currents of thought, initially linked to Babylonian culture and
later to the Achaemenid. If, on the contrary, Hebrewism of an Egyptian
character and tradition had been imposed, perhaps we would have had a Bible
that accepted the presence of a companion of Yahweh as a normal fact. In fact,
we have already talked about the Targums, whose reading leads the Sabbah
brothers to the elaboration of a completely different history inseparably linked to
Egypt. According to these scholars from a rabbinic family, this would be another
possible Bible, completely different from the one considered the foundation of
so many spiritual truths.
We said, then, that the Hebrews were not the first to know Yahweh, but they
were chosen by him or, better yet, constructed and constituted as a people, to try
to conquer a territory that interested them more than the one that had been
assigned to them. Therefore, he welcomed them and made them assume the
Israelite identity, through a long process of evolution and assimilation, which
involved Semites, non-Semites, nomads and semi-nomads, inhabitants of the
cities of Canaan and other places, who migrated there, as Lee I. Levine, a
professor of Jewish history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes.
In terms of the characters we are dealing with, let's say the Elohim:
They were not a single God, as theology has affirmed for two millennia,
but a plurality of individuals made of flesh and bone, a multiplicity evident,
clear, and unequivocal, in various passages of the Old Testament (Ex. 3:12 and
following; Ex. 15:3 and following; Dt. 32:17 and following; Jr. 7:18). It is even
said, for example, that they had encampments in border areas, which they
patrolled with their troops (Gn. 32:1 and following). The ancient authors knew
that these individuals had encampments, and this is also expressly referred to in
the texts of Qumran, such as 4Q401 14i 8, where it says "[...] they are honored
in all the encampments of the Elohim and revered by the assembly of humans
[...]."
They were individuals who lived for so long that they were considered
immortal, even if they were not. In my previous works, passages from the
Bible were mentioned where it is clearly stated that the Elohim, that is, the
supposed God of theology, die like all men (Psalm 82). The traditional exegesis
of this passage represents a paradigmatic example of subservience to
dogmatism. The philology that operates to provide elements to theology affirms
that, without a doubt, the term Elohim represents a particular form of plural that
actually refers to a singular, God. We will return to this, because it represents an
inconsistent dogmatic structure.
For defenders of the traditional doctrine, Psalm 82 poses a real problem -
because the term Elohim, in this case, cannot be referred to in the singular - the
cause of which is the presence of pronouns, adjectives, and most importantly, 10
verbs in the plural form that prevent such a alteration. Even the most staunch
defenders of the singular value have to acknowledge this.
To overcome this obstacle, the incorrigible ones claim that, in this biblical
passage, the term Elohim does not mean "God," but "Judges." We will not go
into details because that has already been done in the mentioned books;
however, we mention what a scholar, who cannot be accused of supporting
fanciful theories, Professor Mike Heiser, the Academic Editor of Logos Bible
Software, M.A. and Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004, says about this.
M.A. in Ancient History at the University of Pennsylvania. The scholar
writes on his website:
Briefly, the divine beings in Yahweh's council (Psalm 82) are not human
rulers. This is made clear in the parallel passage in Psalm 89: 5-8. In Psalm 82:1,
the plural divine beings are referred to as "sons of the Most High" in verse 6.
This indicates that they are "sons of the God of Israel" since, in biblical
theology, Yahweh is considered the Most High (Psalm 83:18).
 In Psalm 89, Yahweh's sons are referred to as "bene Elohim." These bene
Elohim are clearly not human, as their assembly or council is specifically said to
be in the clouds or heavens. The intent of Psalm 82 also demonstrates that these
are divine beings, not humans, as the plural Elohim of Psalm 82 are being
judged for their corrupt administration of the nations. The Hebrew Bible never
states that human rulers, whether Jewish or Gentile, are in charge of the nations.
Furthermore, contrary to popular belief and scholarly assumption, there is no
passage in the Hebrew Bible that refers to humans as Elohim.
"In summary, the Elohim of Yahweh's council (Psalm 82) are divine beings,
not human rulers. This is most evident from the parallel passage in Psalm 89:5-
8. In Psalm 82:1, the plural Elohim are referred to as 'sons of the Most High' in
verse 6. Obviously, this means they are 'sons of the God of Israel', since in
biblical theology, Yahweh is the Most High (Psalm 83:18)."
In Psalm 89, the children of Yahweh are called "bene Elohim". These "bene
Elohim" are obviously not humans, as it is explicitly stated that their assembly,
or council, takes place in the clouds/heavens, and not on Earth. The content of
Psalm 82 also easily demonstrates that these are divine beings, and not humans,
since the plural Elohim in Psalm 82 is being judged for their corrupt
administration of the nations. The Hebrew Bible never states that human rulers,
whether Jewish or Gentile, are responsible for the nations. Furthermore, contrary
to popular and scholarly assumption, no passage in the Hebrew Bible refers to
Elohim as human.
She states some evident facts: the Elohim are not men, they are beings
distinct from the Adam, they live longer - le-'olam, meaning "for a long time in
the past and in the future" - but they have the same mortal nature, according to
the scholar, although the assembly that the psalm speaks of did not happen on
Earth.
For further confirmation, I recommend reading the book "I manuscritti di
Qumran" by Luigi Moraldi, UTET, Turin, 1974, in which the scholar examines
the fragments of the papyri from the Essene community and reveals that several
factions of Elohim were present at that assembly. The Bible has well-defined
terms to indicate judges, felilim (Ex. 21:22) and shofetim, which, not by chance,
is the Hebrew title of the Book of Judges, which were never confused with the
Elohim.
They were individuals who traveled in flying cars, defined as ruach, kavod,
and merkavah, which have been the subject of careful and detailed analyses in
various chapters of my previous books. The kavod is usually translated as "glory
of God," but we must remember that the narrative of Exodus reveals that the so-
called "glory of God" could be seen by appointment, and could also kill anyone
who stood in front of it or was near when it passed. It could also be seen from
behind, after it had passed, and it was even possible to escape its deadly effects
simply by hiding behind a common stone, which guaranteed what God himself
was not capable of ensuring. (Ex. 33). Professor Jeff A. Benner, founder of the
Ancient Hebrew Research Center and author of the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of
the Bible, writes about the kavod and relates the narration of Exodus to Psalms 3
and 24, as well as chapter 29 of Job. He describes it as a heavy chariot, which
serves both for attack and defense.
The Presbyterian reverend Barry Downing, a Christian priest, theologian,
and physicist specialized in the relationship between science and religion, a man
of Christian faith who fulfills his ministry, has no doubts in saying that the
Mosaic religion is the result of an encounter between those people and a UFO,
guided by extraterrestrial intelligences. I will also talk later about the theses of
theologian and professor Armin Kreiner.
However, within the sphere of Hebrew, Catholic, and Protestant Christian
thought, there are open minds capable of asking questions and providing
hypothetical answers that do not resort to the category of mystery to confront
topics that theology cannot explain.
In the Bible, the Elohim are never considered "gods". In reality, they were
originally objects of respect and submission solely because of their great power,
guaranteed by the technology they had and that instilled terror. They were also
feared because of their cruelty, and the Bible Scholarly, although the assembly
that the Psalm speaks of did not happen on Earth.
For further confirmation, I recommend reading the book The Manuscripts of
Qumran, UTET, Turin, 1974, in which the scholar Luigi Moraldi examines the
fragments of papyri from the Essene community and reveals that several factions
of Elohim were present in that assembly. The Bible has well-defined terms to
indicate the judges, felilim (Ex. 21:22) and shofetim, which, not by chance, is
the Hebrew title of the Book of Judges, which were never confused with the
Elohim.
They were individuals who traveled in flying cars, defined as ruach, kavod,
and merkavah, to which careful and detailed analyses were dedicated in several
chapters of my previous books. Kavod is usually translated as "glory of God,"
but we remind ourselves that the narration of Exodus reveals that the so-called
"glory of God" could be seen by appointment, and that, furthermore, it killed
anyone who stood in front of it, anyone who was close when it passed by, and
also that it could be seen from behind, after it had passed, and it was also
possible to save oneself from its deadly effects simply by hiding behind a trivial
stone, which guaranteed, therefore, what God himself was not capable of
ensuring (Ex. 33). Professor Jeff A. Benner, founder of the Ancient Hebrew
Research Center, in addition to being the author of the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon
of the Bible, writes about the kavod and relates the narration.
The Presbyterian Reverend Barry Downing, a Christian priest, theologian,
physicist specializing in the relationship between science and religion, and a
man of Christian faith who carries out his ministry, has no doubt in saying that
the Mosaic religion is the result of an encounter between those people and a
UFO, guided by extraterrestrial intelligences. Later on, I will also speak about
the theories of theologian and professor Armin Kreiner.
 However, within the realm of Hebrew, Catholic, and reformist Christian
thought, there are open minds capable of asking questions and providing
hypothetical answers that do not resort to the category of mystery to tackle
topics that theology fails to explain.
In the Bible, the Elohim are never considered "gods". In reality, they were
originally objects of respect and submission solely because of their great power,
guaranteed by the technology they possessed, which inspired terror. They were
also feared because of their cruelty, and the Bible unequivocally testifies to this
characteristic. Yahweh, defined as “The Warrior”, had no qualms about
commanding true exterminations of defenseless people, conducting operations
that today we would classify, without a doubt, as ethnic cleansing, as can be
seen in the books of Chronicles, Samuel, Kings , etc., etc.
The Elohim did not concern themselves with topics such as religion,
spirituality, and the Afterlife, in the modern sense of these terms. Their main
objective was the establishment of power structures, distributed in various
territories, on which different civilizations developed successively. In order to
achieve this objective, they moved in search of lands and populations that would
serve them (Dt. 32:17 and following).
The Elohim were individuals who knew the laws of Nature and the Cosmos,
which they only transmitted to their faithful followers, thus initiating the caste of
kings/governors/priests, the so-called "initiates" in knowledge, precisely.
However, this knowledge was eminently scientific, concrete, material, that is,
useful for the daily lives of their governors or for their specific requirements as
travelers in space. It had nothing to do with the supposed knowledge of a
spiritualist nature that was developed during the work of concealment that we
are highlighting and denouncing.
Yahweh, far from being the unique and transcendental "God," was just one
among them, the one who had received the function of governing over a defined
territory. But, in reality, we cannot be certain of this, as he could have
autonomously attributed himself power over a territory and a people that no one
had granted him. In fact, in analyzing the strategy for conquering the famous
Promised Land, it is evident that he was very careful not to draw the attention of
his more powerful colleagues/rivals, who governed over surrounding nations
such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. He was aware of his situation and was literally
obsessed with the fear that his people would abandon him to follow the other
gods (Elohim). For this reason, he constantly threatened them with death and
mercilessly killed traitors, as can be seen in two references: Dt. 13:7 and
following; Nm. 25:1 and following.
Facing the theme of his immortality, we anticipate the theme of plurality,
which constitutes the true core of the question and can be summarized as
follows: if the term Elohim refers to the unique, transcendent God, creator of
heaven and earth, the Bible has theological and doctrinal value; and if Elohim
indicates a plurality of individuals, governors, colonizers, the Bible tells a
completely different story.
 It is for this reason that the literal reading that I am doing and presenting
provokes so many reactions. Hebrew philology, in the past two years, has
recognized that a series of statements, seemingly absurd and unacceptable, have
always belonged to Hebrew culture and are found in their sources, in various
versions of the Talmud and Midrashim, the texts of extrabiblical literature that
essentially contain the complex exegesis developed over the centuries by Israeli
thought on the books of the Old Testament. A careful reading and translation of
the Bible in Hebrew reveal that, in truth, these statements are also found there
and are right before our eyes, we simply have to eliminate the facades made on
demand. These evident biblical truths, which we will see shortly, refer to the
fundamental aspects of religious doctrine.
Therefore, the true question, the reason for the intense dispute between
dogmatic positions and free-thinking, focuses on the Elohim. For this reason, it
is worth making some other observations. In the present reality, where printed
media and the internet interact, it is interesting to mention that on YouTube,
there is a short video where I analyze some aspects about the subject, with useful
examples for a better understanding of what we are talking about. The video is
called Elohim and the plural of abstraction and it documents how the biblical
context resolves the grammatical question posed by monotheistic doctrines,
which have the dogmatic need to affirm the uniqueness of God.
For further confirmation, I cite Professor R.V. Foster from Cumberland
University in Lebanon, who doesn't hesitate to say that it is not possible to
demonstrate that the word "Elohim" has been used as a plural of excellence. The
word "Elohim" is Hebrew, but its equivalent also existed beyond that people,
where, in an inevitable and absolutely plural form, it indicated a multiplicity of
individuals. When the word was introduced into the religion of Israel, it brought
with it its plural form and was applied to the one true God, but it was not used as
an idea of majesty or trinity in the meantime.
In fact, we know that the Massoretes did not have knowledge of the
grammatical, syntactic, and linguistic rules that were elaborated centuries later
by philologists who conducted studies specifically on that version of the biblical
text. Unfortunately, biblical philology was, for many centuries, almost
exclusively a prerogative of theologians, who consequently formulated and
applied their functional rules and reading keys. Doctrinal. Having clarified this, I
examine another aspect.
To justify the plurality of the term, monotheistic theologians introduce other
elements and claim that, where its "plural" cannot be denied, Elohim does not
mean "God" but "legislators/judges/ministers". This statement is obvious and
represents yet another strong confirmation of the plurality of those individuals. It
is evident that in our culture, legislative, judicial, and executive functions are
clearly distinct, and the so-called "separation of powers" represents one of the
non-negotiable guarantees of democratic organizations. In the past, on the
contrary, these three functions were concentrated in a single figure, that of the
ruler - king or emperor, whatever their definition may be - who exercised them
both directly and through officials chosen and appointed by themselves.
The Elohim, powerful and plenipotentiary colonizers, represent a typical
model of this concentration and fusion of powers. Their despotic way of
governing - Yahweh being one of the most evident and dramatic examples -
encompassed the functions mentioned above. Therefore, it becomes clear to
everyone that the Elohim were originally, at the same time:
Legislators, who dictated the rules and norms with full decision-making
autonomy.
Rulers, ministers responsible for various aspects of power, applied laws
directly or through their subordinates such as Jethro, Moses, etc., etc.;
Judges prescribed, executed, and ensured respect for the law and enforced
corresponding sentences and punishments.
This does not imply that the Adams were particularly evolved - as
monotheistic theologians/ideologists must necessarily suppose - but the
opposite. The very Bible that we have at home, without any need for special
translations, provides useful elements for us to clearly notice this difference.
Below we will highlight some elements, such as:
The Elohim "created" Adam, Gn. 1, which will be analyzed further ahead.
We ask ourselves: if the Elohim were "normal men," would it have been
necessary to specify this obvious banality? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to affirm it
and, with that, attribute fundamental importance to them in History? It is
evident, therefore, that the Bible does not mean to say that we were made by
"lawmakers/judges/ministers," who were also men, but by "those individuals."
The Elohim "joined" with the females of Adam (Gn. 6). If they had been
ordinary men, with the roles of "legislators/judges/ministers," would it have
been necessary to specify this obvious banality again? With whom should
ordinary men unite? Furthermore, why did those sexual unions give rise to a
particular group, the ghibborim, or in other words, those of mixed blood, who
were defined as "powerful, famous men" not by chance? We recall that in the
history of humanity, the founders of great civilizations were always described as
demigods, that is, children of a human and an individual belonging to the lineage
of those who came from above, from Gilgamesh to Aeneas, from the first rulers
of Egypt to the Japanese dynasty, and so on. The reader can find numerous
examples.
The Elohim die like all Adam (Psalm 82). We have already discussed this,
but we will complement it with another consideration dictated by the objectivity
of common sense: if they were ordinary men, with roles as
"legislators/judges/ministers," would it be necessary to remind such a triviality?
How could it be otherwise?
Yahweh constantly feared that his people would turn to other gods. This
is evident in numerous passages throughout the Bible. We wonder: would a
"true God" have so much fear of common "legislators/judges/ministers," who
are infinitely less powerful than him? Did fear blind him to the point of
mercilessly killing those who abandoned him to serve mere humans? The
Hebrews, who had a direct, constant, daily, and personal relationship with him,
were they foolish enough to abandon the "true almighty God" and trade him for
simple "legislators/judges/ministers" – that is, common men who held positions
of local and limited power?
It would seem impossible to propose such a ridiculous hypothesis, and one
would even say profoundly offensive to the people who, in that case, were truly
unable to distinguish and
The Bible clearly states that the people could "choose" between Yahweh
and other gods (Joshua 24 and many other passages). Supporters of this
doctrine argue that in these cases, it referred to pagan deities that were
represented by stone idols. However, I wonder: were the Hebrews of that time,
after having a direct, constant, daily, and personal relationship with Yahweh for
several centuries, at least from the time of Abraham, naive enough to prefer
idols made of stone, wooden logs, or other lifeless material? Wasn't the drastic
difference overwhelmingly obvious?
1) The Elohim were not, absolutely, "ordinary men" who held positions such
as "legislators/judges/ministers", and they were certainly not inactive and
ridiculous idols.
2) The Elohim, within the roles and powers they exercised, had the same
privileges and characteristics as Yahweh because they belonged to the same
"group" of origin.
3) Yahweh was nothing more than one of them, and therefore constituted one of
the possible choices. For "him," the other Elohim were concrete rivals, fearsome
and extremely dangerous. It seems that this concept would still be very present
in the time of Paul of Tarsus, the so-called apostle of the people, given that the
Christian doctrine is fundamentally based on his theoretical elaborations. This is
analyzed in one of my previous works, called Resurrection.
Reincarnation. In the First Letter to the Corinthians (8:5-6) he explicitly says:
"In truth, even if there are called theoi both in heaven and on earth, and
indeed there are many theoi and many lords, for us there is only one God, the
Father, from whom everything comes, and we exist for Him, the only Lord Jesus
Christ, thanks to whom all things exist, and we exist for Him." The statement is
clear: for this Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, there existed many theoi, just
as there were many Elohim for the Hebrews. The God to whom the believers of
the new faith had to turn was only one, just like the Hebrews had to turn to one:
Yahweh.
Being numerous, and as colonizers, the Elohim had the need to define systems of rules,
norms, and laws to distribute among the peoples they governed.
This was a need particularly felt by Yahweh, who found himself in the
situation of being the administrator of a people that effectively did not exist,
having to build it himself. I recall what the professors Wexler and Levine said
about the nonexistence of Israelite identity and, probably, even the Hebrew
language itself at the time. Moses acted under the guidance of Yahweh. He had
to generate a people that did not exist, give them an identity, and above all,
achieve a combat structure with which he tried to conquer a territory known as
the famous Promised Land. I immediately observe that he never managed to
conquer that territory, a circumstance that contemporary Israeli archaeology
increasingly evidences, notwithstanding the mythification of the entire epic of
the occupation of the land of Canaan and the birth of the kingdoms of David and
Solomon, whose real importance was much lower than that described by fanciful
theological and ideological reconstructions.
So, Yahweh had to build what did not exist, a people and an army.
To do so, it was necessary to elaborate and enunciate a series of rules,
commonly known as the 613 mitzvot, which represent the core of Judaism.
Among these, 248 mitzvot aseh, meaning "you shall do," are specific positive
commands that obligate one to perform a certain action. The remaining 365 are
mitzvot lo ta'aseh, meaning "you shall not do," which are explicit negative
commands that prohibit certain actions.
We mainly know the Ten Commandments, those that constitute the basis of
the moral code of behavior to be adopted in relation to the so-called "neighbor,"
although we see that it is not the case. Professor Ben Zion Bergman, Professor
Emeritus of Rabbinic Literature at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles,
points out that the two lists (Ex. 20 and Dt. 5) present differences in some points
and, moreover, asserts that the norms expressed in the Bible reflect the evolution
originated by the changes, over the centuries, in the ethical conceptions of the
people who formulated them.
Therefore, we are not facing an ethical system with the characteristics of
absolutism and immutability; on the contrary, we have a declared moral
relativism, whose contents change with the variation of political, social, and
cultural conditions. We can say that the biblical God adapted to situations and
times, and we will see later to what extent this is true and significant. But, before
addressing the issue regarding the actual content of the commandments, And
mainly for their purposes - absolutely trivial - I have to mention the precise
statement found in Exodus 34:27. Yahweh expressly states that the
commandments, on which the covenant with Moses and the people is based, are
as follows:.
"Do not form alliances with the inhabitants of the land";
"Destroy their altars, idols, and images, and do not worship their gods";
"Do not take the women of the land as wives for the sons of Israel";
"Do not make idols out of molten metal";
"Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the month of Abib";
"Take for Himself all the firstborn males, and redeem the firstborn of
humans with gifts";
"Respect the Sabbath after working for six days";
"Celebrate the Feast of Weeks (harvest, end of the year...)";
 "Present every male before God three times a year";
"Do not offer the blood of the victim with leavened bread, and the sacrifice
of the Passover must not last until morning";
"Give to the Lord the first fruits of the land";
"Do not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."
As we can clearly see, these commandments are not the ones taught to us,
and they have nothing to do with purely moral behavioral norms. Instead, they
are precise practical indications that often carry dramatic consequences.
The parallel analysis of the two lists is the subject of a chapter in The Book
that will forever change our ideas about the Bible, but I already present here
some new specific expressions.
The precept regarding the delivery of the firstborn had the purpose of their
use during sacrifices. Yahweh required their delivery eight days after birth -
exactly as he imposed with animals (Ex. 22:28-29) - and wanted them to be
burned for him, as he himself states in Ezekiel 20:25 and following. This is one
of the passages where the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) reveals its courage
in maintaining the correct meaning of the Hebrew verb. The following is the
translation published by the CEI of verses 24-26 in chapter 20 of Ezekiel: "[...]
because they had not practiced my laws, on the contrary, they had despised my
decrees, profaned the Sabbath, and their eyes were always turned to the idols of
their fathers."
Because of this, I even gave them laws that were not good and laws that they
could not live by to live. And I caused them to defile their offspring, making
each of their firstborn sons pass through the fire, to terrify them, so that they
would recognize that I am the Lord (Yahweh) [...].”
"Making each of their firstborns pass through the fire" is a harsh and
devastating meaning, so unacceptable to the doctrine that, in most traditional
bibles, it is skillfully concealed and replaced by the term "consecrate," which has
nothing to do with the literalness of the Hebrew text and, most importantly, with
the objectives of this act. The purposes of producing that smoke - obtained
through burning fat, prepared exactly as described in Leviticus 3:3-5 - have been
extensively analyzed in my previous work, where the medical study
documenting the neurophysiological function of smelling that smoke, which
"calmed" the Elohim, is published. I will not return to this subject here, but I
must note some facts narrated by people from other continents regarding this
same strange demand that the so-called divinities manifested in all places. Even
works that, from a certain point of view, are considered distant and unsuspected,
provide us with some evidence. In the Iliad, in books I, II, IV, VI, VII, XXII,
and XXIII, and in the Odyssey, in books III, VII, IX, XII, XIII, XVII, and XIX.
For example, the "gods" demanded that certain pieces of meat and fat from
animals be prepared and completely burned, exactly like the biblical Yahweh
and his colleagues, the Elohim, did. They would smell that smoke to relax – that
is clearly written in the Bible, but it is obviously not accepted by doctrine, and
therefore, philology working in its service seeks to deny in every way that the
Hebrew term "nichoach" has this meaning, which, on the contrary, is clear,
unambiguous, and also unique, as revealed in dictionaries written by Israeli
scholars themselves.
These people want, therefore, to convince us that it is an allegory, although
we are invited to accept that the biblical authors and Homer, and/or the other
authors of the texts written and attributed to the latter, would have all chosen, for
whatever strange reason, precisely the same literary instrument and the same
allegorical representation to correspond essentially to the same contents! More
immediate and less fanciful is to think that, in both cases, these are narratives
that speak of concrete and well-known situations.
I understand that it may be unacceptable for believers to the idea that the
God in whom they want to believe is appeased by burned fat, and therefore we
return to the example of the medical committee regarding the color of the nail.
While philologist surgeons use scalpels and forceps to try to extract what
interests them in ideological and theological matters, I ask a few questions. If
that smoke - as they want to convince us - should symbolically represent the
ascent of the spirit that wishes to reunite with God, then why:
It was necessary to produce true carnage of living beings?
Was it necessary to generate so much suffering?
Wasn't it enough to burn wood or straw to achieve the same effect?
Wasn't it sufficient to burn the wool of the sheep instead of killing the sheep
(in case it was really necessary to use an animal element)?
Did the Elohim, the supposed single God, accept Abel's sheep and Caim's
vegetables? Were they not capable of perceiving the equivalence of
intentions? Wasn't each of them offering what they had in disposition?
Yahweh wanted "the fat that covers the entrails and everything that is on
them, the two kidneys with their fat, the fat on the loins and the lobe of the
liver, which is removed above the kidneys" to be burned (Lv. 3:3-5).
Did the Elohim only want that type of fat and not another?
That fat was so important and precious that Yahweh commanded to kill
anyone caught using it for themselves (Leviticus 7:25).
The problem is that this fat was also from the children of men, who were
given to them when they were eight days old, and surely we cannot imagine that
they personally raised them after tearing them away from their mothers (Ex.
22:28-29). Human sacrifices continued until the year... 622 BC, until the
moment when the reform of King Josiah replaced them with sheep, seeking to
eliminate this type of reminder. See the studies of Professor Giovanni Garbini,
mentioned in the Bibliography, regarding this matter. We know well that the
practice of human sacrifices was widespread among peoples from all corners of
the planet. All mention the "deities" that explicitly demanded this type of fierce
and inhumane offering. The Judeo-Christian culture assumes a duplicitous
behavior towards this reality, as it considers the rituals performed by other
people to be absolutely real, while also considering them barbaric and pagan.
Meanwhile, it tends to read and interpret with allegorical or metaphorical keys
the human sacrifices clearly mentioned in the Bible, as they were expressly
demanded by Yahweh. Throughout the centuries, it has tried and continues to try
to deny the evident historical reality. It has attempted to spread the belief that
this barbaric practice was exclusively reserved for the so-called "pagans".
However, it is evident that this barbarism was also practiced by the people of
Yahweh, and it was from them that the request for its practice originated, an
evidence from which it is impossible to exempt oneself from.
"The practice was likely moderated and replaced by a monetary payment as
a form of redemption when the conditions necessary for Yahweh to continue
giving this order were no longer met, as explained by Yahweh himself in
Ezekiel 20:21 and following. This monetary payment proved more beneficial for
the caste responsible for collecting it. The transition from murder to payment of
a monetary equivalent is one of many situations that reveals the progressive
evolution of morality and customs that occurred over time, as noted by Professor
Ben Zion Bergman, previously mentioned, which led to innovations and
variations in the very norms themselves. Therefore, we also perceive here that
the rules dictated by the supposed God were constantly subject to modification
and had relative value, as was already evident in the midrash when Yahweh
authorized the continuance of a certain practice."
For now, I only anticipate one concept, which will be more evident after
examining the traditional Ten Commandments: we must recognize that the great
religious systems, based on the Old Testament, had the ability to build a corpus
of positive ethical norms, "despite" what is written in that book and not "thanks"
to it. This aspect also had its importance in the construction of the spiritual
structure, which, at least in this scope, resulted in an achievement with positive
meanings.
However, the amorality, not to mention immorality, of Yahweh's behavior
finds its first example in the assessment of the operational application of the
precept that proclaims: "Do not take women from the country for the children of
Israel."
 The Ten Commandments: the discrepancies
between Yahweh and Moses.
We know from the Bible that Moses, without caring about the norms, had a
Midianite companion and took for himself a Cushite woman, that is, Ethiopian.
It must be noted that if Hebrew heritage is transmitted through the mother, we
must recognize that Moses' children were not Hebrew, even if we want to
believe that he himself was. Furthermore, under such conditions, they would not
be. Hebrews, not even Ephraim and Manasseh, patriarchs of the two
homonymous tribes, since their mother was the Egyptian Asenath, daughter of
Potiphera (Gn. 41:45) and companion of their father, Joseph. However, this is
only a curiosity because, as already seen previously, in the time of Moses that
people did not exist, just as they also did not exist in the time of Joseph, who
preceded him by a few centuries. And what can we say about Ruth, the great-
grandmother of King David? She was a Moabite, and therefore, her son Obed,
father of Jesse and grandfather of David, was not nominally a hebrew.
Having observed these curiosities, let us return to the case of the non-
Israelite women of Moses, with Aaron revealing the inconsistency of the fact
that the leader of the people was the first to violate one of the fundamental
precepts, precisely one of those on which Yahweh himself had explicitly
declared the entire Covenant to be based.
Numbers 12:1 and following, the biblical author mentions Aaron and his
sister Miriam, the prophetess, when they "spoke against Moses because of the
Cushite woman he had married...". When this complaint reached the ears of
Yahweh - which we cannot fail to share, at least in the name of a minimum
sense of justice - He summons the three to His residence, descends from His
flying car, positions himself in front of the entrance to His tent, and addresses
them. Aaron and Miriam affirm that Moses enjoys a privileged position because
he has a direct relationship with God, and they conclude by strongly
reprimanding them for speaking ill of their favorite. Verse 9 says that God
became angry with them and left in his flying chariot, leaving a sign of his anger
that affected only Miriam in the same instant, with an unidentified skin
condition. Therefore, we are facing a curious fact, which we summarize as
follows:
Yahweh (God?) promulgates rules that he himself defines as fundamental;
His highest representative and helper on Earth is the first to violate these rules;
The so-called high priest, Aaron, with his sister, the prophetess Miriam,
observe the evident and unacceptable contradiction;
Instead of reproaching Moses for the violation of the rules,
Yahweh becomes angry with those who brought attention to the violation
and, adding injustice to injustice, chooses to physically harm only the woman,
between the two brothers..
 A brief - yet curious - deviation: the skin condition that affects Miriam was
generally referred to as leprosy, but strangely resembles the effects of a weapon
that Yahweh supposedly used on at least three other occasions. In Deuteronomy
7:20, Exodus 23:28, and Joshua 24:12. Yahweh uses an instrument, or a group
of instruments, called tzir 'ah – a singular feminine term in collective form – that
produces severe effects on the skin of those who are affected. The term is
singular, but it is commonly translated as "wasps, hornets" to recall the effects of
their stings, although the Brown-Driver-Briggs and Gesenius dictionaries, cited
in the Bibliography, attribute the concepts of folding, prostration, piercing, and
striking to it.
I invite the reader in a cheerful mood to a context where the mere thought of
wanting to confirm that hypothesis becomes ridiculous. Why would wasps
selectively attack only enemies, rendering them harmless, and place them in the
hands of the Israelites? It seems clear that it was something that could
selectively target the skin of adversaries, producing serious effects. Who knows
if a more detailed description of tzir 'ah can be found in one of those 11
officially disappeared books, one of which is titled "The Wars of Yahweh"?
Perhaps that text was quite explicit in describing the processes used by Yahweh
during battles... Could someone have made it unavailable for that reason?
Whatever the process used, only Miriam was affected on her skin, and it is
truly strange the sense of justice of that individual, who they want to present to
us as the omniscient God, just in judging men. Instead, we notice without a
shadow of a doubt that, at that time, just like currently, those who possess power
place themselves above the laws. Nothing has changed - it was already like this
when the supposed God was on Earth, debating with men, seeking to be obeyed,
even amidst a thousand contradictions. Each one can draw their own conclusions
about the amorality or immorality of that individual, Yahweh, who they want to
convince us is God Himself, that is, the supreme legislator who, in the end of
times, will judge us with justice. If I am allowed a comment, I would like to say:
"May God protect and keep us!"
Fortunately for us, Yahweh is not God, because if he were, our lives and, especially, our
desired eternity would be truly in bad hands.
The Hebrew scholar Lia, daughter of Adam, who studies the stories of
Exodus, defines the personality of Yahweh in the following way: "Aggressive,
austere, jealous, angry, cruel, inhumane, exclusive, demanding, fierce, crude,
immature, merciless, childish, inflexible, naïve, intolerant, difficult, wrathful,
sensitive, arrogant, predictable, oppressive, rigid, wise, terrifying, tyrannical,
vengeful [...]" (op. cit. in the Bibliography).
But I can only express, furthermore, all my understanding for Moses, who
must not have had an easy life. On one hand, he had to satisfy the requests and
orders of that individual, and on the other hand, he had to convince a group of
nomads and semi-nomads that the best choice for them was to serve such a
character. In the meantime, we can deduce more things by analyzing the Ten
Commandments that the doctrine chose as the foundation to build its ethical
code, the one we all know (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5).
"I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods before me";
"Do not take the name of God in vain";
"Keep holy the Sabbath day and holidays";
"Honor your father and mother (and other legitimate authorities)";
"Do not kill (or cause harm, physically or mentally, to yourself or others)";
"Do not commit acts of impurity";
"Do not steal";
"Do not bear false witness (or in any way, lie or slander others)";
"Do not desire your neighbor's spouse";
"Do not covet what belongs to others."
Let's clarify: the first commandment was opportunistically reworked by
tradition to align with the monotheistic view; however, it is important to know
that it sounds different in Hebrew (Dt. 5:6-7). The version that has been
transmitted to us is as follows: "I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other
gods before me," while in the biblical text it sounds like this: "I am Yeh(o)wah,
your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
slavery; you shall have no other Elohim before me."
Here a recurring situation is revealed: every time Yahweh presented himself,
he needed to formalize his resume, he had to remember his merits acquired in
relation to that people, so as not to confuse him with his colleagues/rivals. This
passage alone would be enough to understand that Yahweh was well aware of
the existence of "other Elohim" and the possibility of being abandoned by some
of his people, as we had already observed.
The aspect that I would like to highlight here is regarding the Commandments, and we
can formalize it with the following statement: these norms are not a code of ethical behavior
elaborated for Humanity, but a set of rules promulgated to make the coexistence within that
field of reeducation, which Moses had established in the desert of Mount Sinai, organized
and "livable".
A field where he kept - or rather, segregated - those people to build a nation
that did not exist before, and to equip themselves with the necessary fighting
force to conquer the land where Yahweh had decided to govern, no matter the
cost, including the shedding of a large amount of blood.
One of the mechanisms adopted by Moses to keep those people connected to
him was the requisition of all valuable metals, especially fine gold, as only with
these could they have access to water and pastures, which belonged to the
people who lived there. Deprived of the currency that would have given them
autonomy of movement, that poor people would have to depend on Moses and
Yahweh to have access to sources of sustenance.
But I have already written extensively about this in Non c'è creazione nella
Bibbia, and therefore I will not delve further into the subject here.
"Returning to the Commandments, it is important to clarify, from now on,
that prevailing theologies have deliberately spread a concept that I assert,
euphemistically, is wrong, as not to say that it is clearly false. When, in the
Hebrew verses, the identity or typology of those towards whom the prohibited
acts should not be committed are defined, the term formed by the root resh ayn
is used, which means 'friend,' 'companion.'" "comrade", "member of the same
society", "fellow countryman". However - as with every reading key presented
in this and my other works -, the true meaning is deduced from the analysis of
the context and the entirety of the stories, rather than through philological
surgery. All biblical documentation explicitly explains, without any doubt, that
the expanded concept of "neighbor" is a result of later elaboration, with the
possibility of Yahweh referring to the entire human race being even more
remote in that passage. Those orders and prohibitions were exclusively valid for
his people, that is, for that group of nomads and semi-nomads that Moses was
trying, diligently, to transform into a people with acceptable rules of social
coexistence.
There was no "next," in the modern sense of the term, with which someone
had to deal with, worry about, or respect. It was exclusively "among them," that
they should not kill each other, steal things or animals from each other, or take
women, who were considered nothing more than property of the males, nor
engage in lending with speculation, etc., etc. On the contrary, in relation to
others, everything was allowed and suggested to them, if not even expressly
ordered.
Let's consider, for example, the commandment that refers to an extremely
important topic, I would even say the main foundation for all coexistence
between people, which is respect for the lives of others, expressed in the clear
and seemingly unambiguous commandment "Do not kill".
I wrote apparently unambiguous because, consistently with what I am
demonstrating, Rabbi Dovid Bendory, director of Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership (JPFO in English), pointed out an error in the translation of
the above commandment. He correctly noted that the expression "lo tirtzach"
does not generically mean "do not kill," but specifically "do not murder," not to
engage in an act that inherently involves intentionally and premeditatedly killing
one person.
The Rabbi writes that there is a big difference between killing and
assassinating, and he affirms that this confusion derives from a translation error,
which has tormented Jews and Christians with a sense of guilt and unjustified
remorse due to the deaths caused during wars, accidents, and self-defense. As a
direct consequence of this interpretive error, he questions the number of lives
that have been lost because of a stupid (!) pacifism, which has prevented the
legitimate defense of their own lives instead of promoting it, by adopting a just
defense against evil.
Obviously, we may not agree with this last consideration, but what is
relevant to observe is that the correct translation of that commandment has a
different meaning. If it had the universal meaning that was attributed to it, when
monotheistic spiritual theology assumed control over the meaning of the Bible,
we should say that Yahweh himself was the first to not respect the rules that he
himself established. I would say that it is very difficult to establish the number
of enemies directly killed due to his orders, as it is necessary to point out, as
well, that he did it within his own group. It was enough for there to be signs of
dissension or for someone to address other Elohim for him to mercilessly kill. I
recommend reading the following biblical passages to understand what we are
talking about: Exodus 32, Numbers 11, Numbers 14, Numbers 16, and Numbers
25.
Yahweh's vocation for war - not by chance, he is defined in the Bible as ish
milchamah, or "man of war" - is documented in several passages, in which he
commanded and/or allowed the death of human beings with a ferocity that we
recognize only in a few contemporary or recent historical dictators.
This decisive order not to murder - along with other orders - was valid
exclusively within the camp and the group. Murder, theft, robbery, kidnapping,
or the violation of a female belonging to another male of the same tribe or
perhaps a neighboring tent would lead to dangerous reactions, endless conflicts,
disastrous disputes between family clans, as well as extremely violent and
uncontrollable behavior. Yahweh could not allow anarchy and justice carried out
by one's own hands to reign sovereign in that desert camp of tents, as it was too
risky for his objective, which was to forge the necessary unity of spirit in order
to act in a concerted manner and fight with the necessary determination.
The Commandments were therefore internal rules promulgated with a
specific objective: to establish order. Outside the group, everything was allowed,
suggested, requested, or even explicitly commanded, including the most
infamous and horrific actions. Among many others, we find passages such as
Deuteronomy 2:33-35
"The Lord (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) delivered them into our hands, and
we defeated them, their children, and all their people. At that time, we took all
the cities and dedicated them to complete destruction, including every city, man,
woman, and child; we left no survivors. We only took as plunder the livestock
and the spoils from the cities we had conquered."
Joshua 8:24-25:
"When Israel finished killing all the fighters of Ai in the wilderness, where
they had pursued them, and all of them, until the last man, fell by the sword of
the Israelites, they all gathered together and attacked Ai, killing all of its
inhabitants. All the people who died that day, men and women, numbered
twelve thousand, all from Ai."
Judges 21:10-12:
“Then the community sent twelve thousand men of the most valor and
ordered them: “You will go and kill all the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead,
including the women and children. You will do this: you will kill every male and
every woman who has had sex with a man; instead, you will spare the virgins.”
They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead 400 virgins, who had not
had relations with anyone, and they took them to the camp in Shiloh, which is in
the country of Canaan.”
Samuel 15:3:
“Go, therefore, attack Amalek and dedicate yourself to the extermination of
what belongs to him, do not let yourself be moved by compassion for him, but
kill men and women, children and newborns, oxen and sheep, camels and
donkeys.”
Finally, read the entire chapter of Joshua, where the conquest of southern
Palestine is narrated, through a system that we would define as true ethnic
cleansing. The inhabitants of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron
and Debir were killed after the conquest was over and therefore without any
military necessity. Verse 40 is unequivocal: “So Joshua defeated the entire
country, the mountains, the Negev, the valley, the slopes and all its kings. He
left no survivors and dedicated himself to the extermination of every living
being, as the Lord (Yahweh), God (Elohim) of Israel, had ordered. “
It was he, Yahweh, who ordered the exterminations, which did not even
spare women, the elderly and children. I repeat that there was no “neighbor”, in
the modern sense of the term, with whom anyone would have to concern
themselves, worry or respect.
We must become aware of an evident reality: Yahweh was one of the Elohim and
fought fiercely to expand his territory. He mercilessly eliminated the unfortunate people
whose only fault was that they lived in the places that interested him and who, therefore,
had to be eliminated to leave space for his followers to settle.
Today, according to our moral principles, we would consider it absolutely
unacceptable to honor, love and pray to such a being. But, in truth, we should
not do this because he himself did not ask us to do so, because he is not the
universal God, he was not and is not the God of all, since Humanity, generally
speaking, was not part of the interests from him. He was the governor of a
people and acted for them, and only for them, relating to them in methods that
often seem unacceptable to us today.
Certain commandments and certain norms had meaning in that context, at
that moment, with that crowd of people, who had to be disciplined or, as the
Hebrew scholar Lia bat Adam says, had to be formed and modeled, as in a kind
of “training camp”. paramilitary", as was the camp in the Exodus desert.
In the light of facts and history, the real big mistake, the cause of several
paradoxical events, because of violence and foolishness, is that that book was
forcibly adapted to other faiths, with intentions completely distorted from the
original objective for which it was written. and transmitted.
Knowledge of the possible truth should calm minds and make the Bible
considered for what it is, the more or less true history of a people and their
governor. A story about which it is useless for Humanity to continue to divide
itself.
 Returning to the Commandments, I show that the said governor had to think
about everything, as he even regulated the behavior that had to be maintained in
compliance with normal physiological requirements, which he felt he had to
intervene on, to avoid unpleasant situations that could bring hassle. Let us
therefore look more at this truly peculiar curiosity in mitzvot, a type of
intervention that one would not expect from a spiritual God. To avoid any
trouble for himself, Yahweh considered it necessary to give this indication (Dt.
23:13 et seq.): “You will also have a place outside the camp and there you will
relieve yourself. In your equipment there will be a shovel, with which, when you
are finished, you will dig a hole and then cover your excrement. Because the
Lord (Yahweh), your God (Elohim), passes through your camp [...].” And he
continues, explaining that that rule served to prevent him from seeing those
indecencies.
From not murdering to orders on how to carry out cruel massacres, and the
attention given to bodily evacuation, we have a normative path that leaves no
room for doubt about the concrete reality of that individual's intentions and
personal demands.
If it were true that all these accounts are exclusively metaphors or allegories, the Bible
would have only one fate - the trash bin - because it would be the work of madmen to
present their own God and metaphorically make Him one of the least commendable
characters in all of human history.
However, this is precisely what supporters of the spiritualist thesis claim, as
their convictions do nothing but discredit the text. They fail to perceive or
understand, stubbornly spreading the invented truth, that the eventual God -
existing for people of faith - does not need a book to strengthen Himself, much
less a book like the Old Testament, which never talks about God, as we can see.
I believe, on the contrary, that the Bible is not the work of insane people,
and that it should be known and studied because, especially in the parts related
to origins, it contains important information to rewrite the history of Humanity.
Sooner or later, this will have to be taken into consideration by academics.
Among the many doubts that surround my continuous study, I am certain that
this history, as it has been told to us, is at best incorrect, and at worst, sadder
than one could imagine, since it would then be intentionally false, that is,
invented and sustained to keep the truth obscured and build theological and
ideological power systems that would immediately collapse if humanity knew.
This conclusion is reached through reading the Bible, regarding those
individuals who were transformed into "God," and this is the fundamental
invention to which I refer when I previously stated that the builders of theologies
not only refrained from narrating what is written – they went even further and
introduced that which is not written.
 More about Yahweh, the supposed God.
I showed that the Bible presents Yahweh as one of the least important
Elohim within the group, to whom, for that reason, a relatively unimportant
allocation was given, so insignificant from a demographic and territorial
perspective that he sought to expand his sphere of influence through military
conquest, which he only achieved on a very limited scale.
I reaffirm what I have previously said on occasions when I examined
Deuteronomy 32:8 and following, about the unsustainability of the monotheistic
thesis that Yahweh "chose autonomously" that people. According to this thesis,
the entire Bible would be the insane story of how a "God", equally crazy,
chooses for himself only one people, and then proceeds militarily and bloodily
in the conquest of other peoples that he himself, as "God", had not attributed to
himself.
Soon we will see what the Bible says about this choice, but before that we
have to examine a curiosity that refers precisely to the beginning. An
unconditional reading of chapters 4 and 5 of the book of Genesis leads to the
assumption that Yahweh, the supposed God of the Bible, had nothing to do with
the creation of Adam and Eve. Now, after the famous event involving their first
two sons, Cain and Abel, Adam, at 130 years old, begets Seth, who in turn, at
105 years old, begets Enosh. The Bible informs us (Gen. 4:26) that only in the
time of Enosh "began men to call upon the name of Yahweh," that is, 235 years
after the Elohim made Adam.
What it means is that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth were not addressing him, but other gods.
However, the biblical authors made it so that Eve named Yahweh in Genesis
4:1. Probably, this must have happened when the theology of the priests of
Jerusalem began to transform Yahweh into the only God, establishing the roots
of monotheism. This is possibly one among many other interventions aiming to
celebrate the greatness of that Elohim, attributing prerogatives to him that did
not find correspondence in the figure that the entire biblical text describes with
evident clarity, that is, Yahweh did not participate in the action that produced
Adam and Eve, which coherently fits within the logic of the Bible itself.
The two parents of this special breed were produced by those whom we
would call "biomolecular engineers," while Yahweh was an "ish milchamah"
(Ex. 15:3), which means a "man of war," a quality that the entire Old Testament
documents, essentially describing how he did nothing else but fight and certainly
did not have the necessary skills to work in the biomedical or genetic sector.
This can be analyzed in detail in my previous works.
As per a person from the Hebrew community in Rome wrote to me, Yahweh
could be a young man, the son of one of the chief Elohim, and he had to gain
experience by demonstrating his ability. To confirm this, I quote the Ugaritic
inscription mentioned by Professor Garbini, op. cit. in the bibliography, where
an El, a singular form of Elohim, states: "The name of my son is Yah" (VI AB,
IV, 13-14). Therefore, Ugaritic culture also knew this.
 It should not surprise us that he, besides not having created the heavens and
the earth, has appeared in the history of the Adamites later, probably having
received those people and that desert territory from Elyon, the commander of the
Elohim (Dt. 32:8), at the time of Peleg, when, according to the Bible (Gn.
10:25), the division of the Earth was made.
The ancient code of the Greek Bible, the Septuagint, describes very well the
concept of division, using the verb diamerizo, which precisely indicates the act
of "dividing and distributing", and the Bible has no difficulty in remembering
how different Elohim had other lands and other peoples. An example? In Judges
11:24, Jephthah speaks to the king of Ammon and says to him: "The lands that
your Elohim Chemosh gave you, just as we keep the one that Yahweh, our
Elohim, gave us." No comments are necessary, such is the clarity of this verse.
For Jephthah and for the biblical author, the Elohim named Chemosh is not an
inert idol, but a worthy colleague/rival of Yahweh. Thus, Chemosh and Yahweh
are clearly placed on the same level, they have the same power to assign lands,
neither is declared superior – in short, they are equals.
Returning to the progenitor Adam, I say that if the hypothesis were correct
that Yahweh did not participate in his "fabrication", we could confirm that the
supposed God of theology would have found Adam already ready and made,
produced by his colleagues.
Let's now look at the famous "choice" of the people. In chapters 10 and 11
of Genesis, the genealogies of Noah's descendants are listed, and we
immediately notice that the names of the great peoples of the past in the Middle
East are outside the sphere of control of the supposed "God": Egypt, Assyria,
Babylon... But when we come to the Hebrews, what do we discover?
Sem, the son of Noah, defined in Genesis 10:21 as the ancestor of all the
sons of Heber, that is, the Hebrews, begets Arphaxad, who besides other sons
and daughters begets Salah, who besides other sons and daughters begets Eber,
the eponymous patriarch of the Hebrews, who besides other sons and daughters
begets Peleg and Joktan. Peleg, in turn, besides other sons and daughters, begets
Reu, who besides other sons and daughters begets Serug, who besides other sons
and daughters begets Nahor, who besides other sons and daughters begets Terah,
who begets Abraham, Nahor, and Haran.
At this point in history, Yahweh intervenes, choosing Abraham from "just
one" of the thousands of Hebrew families, that is, the descendants of Heber.
Only Abraham from this family is chosen, as even his father and two brothers
are not included in Yahweh's choice. The reality of the biblical text is, in
essence, clear: Yahweh attributed or chose only one of the hundreds or
thousands of "Hebrew" families, descendants of Heber, who themselves had
never even heard of him because they were ruled by other Elohim, as clearly
stated in the Bible, even in relation to Abraham's own family (see, for example,
Joshua 24:2 and following).
In fact, many of these families, the Moabites, Edomites, Amalekites,
Midianites, etc., etc., all descendants of Heber or, in a later period, even of
Abraham himself, heard about Yahweh, and in a dramatic way, as they were.
object of the massacres which he had ordered to rid those territories of their
presence, and that, as the supposed "God," he had not initially self-attributed but
later became interested in. I recall what was stated by Lee I. Levine, professor of
Jewish History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, regarding Israeli identity,
which was the result of a long process of evolution and assimilation, involving
Semites, non-Semites, nomads, semi-nomads, inhabitants of the cities of
Canaan, and other immigrant peoples.
Considering all of this, and supposing that, as several rabbis claim, Abraham
never existed, then I ask myself: to whom did Yahweh originally address? In
addition, who were those whom he led out of Egypt with the help of Moses?
I would say that, with the Bible, we really have to "pretend that..." and it is
truly enlightening to read the studies of rabbis, free from dominant dogmas,
theological and ideological.
When Abraham discovers that God gets tired,
dirty, and hungry...
I conclude this chapter with a story narrated in Genesis 18 and 19. The
narration connects, curiously, various aspects that characterized those
individuals in a significant way, highlighting an enlightening and unexpected
parallel between Yahweh and the Malachites. The passage in question
documents that they were simply bipeds made of flesh and bone, a fact related to
their own ability to use technologies, not only advanced but also dangerously
threatening to their existence.
In the central hours of the day, we find Abraham sitting, enjoying the shade
of his tent, when he sees three anashim approaching from afar, as defined by the
Hebrew text, meaning three men, or more precisely, three male individuals, as
anashim is the plural of ish, a term that indicates male. Abraham immediately
understands that these three anashim are not normal men, but belong to the
group of rulers, and he also perceives the personal and physically peculiar
situation in which they present themselves.
They give you a clear impression that they are dirty, dusty, hungry, thirsty,
tired, which leads you to immediately invite them to stay in your tent to rest and
recover. You prepare water for them to wash their feet, and it is precisely this
concrete act that makes us think that they arrived on foot and therefore needed to
specifically refresh that part of their body, particularly heated and dusty from the
arid terrain. You invite them to sit under the shade of a tree and order food to be
prepared, instructing your servant to cook the meat that you yourself chose. At
the same time, you ask your wife, Sarah, to knead the dough with flour and offer
all of this accompanied by sour and fresh milk.
In verse 13, we have the first surprise: we discover that one of the three anashim - male
individuals who arrived tired, dirty, hungry, and thirsty - is Yahweh, who, according to theology, is
none other than God himself. We deduce immediately that God walks, gets tired, gets dirty, needs
to wash his feet, eats, drinks, and rests in the shade... just like us.
It is not in vain that the Bible defines him as an ish, a male individual, just as
it is not by chance that the biblical authors never considered God in the sense
that theology attributes to this term. On the other hand, the definition of "Man"
that we have in our dictionaries essentially says that it is a mammal
characterized by an upright position, articulate language, large brain
development, with the ability to transmit acquired experiences and knowledge in
an elaborate way. Yahweh, whom the Bible, as we saw before, defines as ish
milchamah, a "man of war," and who here includes himself in this trio with two
other anashim, the plural of ish, had exactly these attributes. Just like him, his
Elohim colleagues also possessed them, and these last ones were so identical to
the Adam that they could unite sexually with the earthly females, generating
offspring. (Genesis 6), still sharing with them the characteristic of being mortals,
as we have already seen in Psalm 82. But, I will speak about the Adams in the
next chapter. For now, let us return to our narrative, which holds a second
surprise for us.
 Among the three men, the one recognized as Yahweh stays to talk with
Abraham, while the other two depart to fulfill their mission, which consists of
going to Sodom to warn Lot, the patriarch's nephew, about what is about to
happen. During the battles, which we should define as true territorial wars
fought by the Elohim, the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, Zeboim, and
Bela/Zoar were on the verge of changing alliances, so it was decided to destroy
them completely, starting with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Incidentally, I indicate that chapter 14 of the Genesis book mentions that in
the wars in which Abraham participated on behalf of Yahweh, the king of
Shin'ar was also involved, a biblical term to indicate Sumer, which signifies an
important connection between the two worlds. Lot, as Abraham's nephew,
belonged to the Yahwist alliance, which was being abandoned by the five cities.
It was for this reason that, the following day, they would have been attacked and
destroyed. It was necessary for faithful Lot to immediately leave his house and
save himself along with his family.
The mission of the two anashim was to warn Lot, and that's why they leave
Yahweh and Abraham in the tent and depart. As soon as they continue their
journey, they take on the role of messengers, so from that exact moment, the
Bible correctly defines them as malaquins (Gen. 19:1), that is, precisely
messengers, bearers of orders. We remind you that the term malaquim is
translated as "angel", and with that definition, they assumed their role as
spiritual entities in theology, even though they do not have the characteristics for
it. The continuation of the narrative further highlights this invention made by the
exegetes.
They resume the road and arrive at the city gates at night. From afar, they
are immediately recognized by Lot and the elders who were with him.
Abraham's nephew invites them into his house, offers them refreshment and
food. Here, we become aware that these so-called angels, after having lunch
with Abraham, have dinner with Lot. The other residents, who saw them arrive,
already imagined the reason for their coming. (verse 9) and they want to capture
them. However, Lot defends them, even offering his virgin daughters to his
fellow countrymen to appease them. But the attackers do not stop at that. At this
point, we witness a scene that is very unsettling, clear, and unequivocal in its
realism: while Lot tries to calm the anger of the attackers, the two angels inside
his house, described again as men (verses 10-11, translation from CEI), "reached
out their hands, brought Lot inside the house, and closed the door. As for the
men at the door of the house, they were struck with blindness, from the least to
the greatest, so that they could not find the door."
These individuals, so materialistic in their physical appearance, susceptible
to attack by the crowd, avoid being captured using a technological stratagem.
Nothing supernatural. By the way, I recall, in passing, that the Hebrew
philologists who commented, in one of my previous works, on the chapter
dedicated to the "chemical" miracle of Elijah wrote that "all biblical miracles
have technological origins," establishing the fact that there is never a
supernatural intervention.
Anyway, the narrative continues with the two of them, the next morning,
literally dragging Lot and his family out of their house. Shortly after, it is seen
what the Elohim had decided: the destruction of the cities by a fire that came
from the sky. Verses 26-27 explain that, on that occasion, the cities were
destroyed, as well as the entire valley, with its inhabitants and vegetation, and
that smoke rose from the ground like that of a clay oven. What happened? What
technology or weapons were used?
The discovery of radioactive sand in the Sinai territory, as well as the
Sumerian and Akkadian narratives describing battles fought by powerful local
rulers, who correspond to the biblical Elohim, allows the imagination to propose
hypotheses that point to atomic bombs. In any case, for this analysis – which
provides us with highly interesting and embarrassingly concrete elements that
have been deliberately ignored by exegetes – I prefer to remain faithful to the
biblical text, which I restrict myself to.
I allow myself a brief historical-geographical excursion, the events of which
can be situated between the 20th and 18th centuries BCE, since the narratives
regarding Abraham and his family are dated to that period. In contrast to
tradition, modern archaeology, which compares the biblical description of the
story with the location where Abraham is said to have been and the time it took
for the two messengers to travel, tends to place Sodom and Gomorrah along the
Jordan River valley, north of the Dead Sea.
On the orographic right is the city of Jericho. In that territory, the story of
Elisha took place, narrated in the Second Book of Kings, approximately in the
year 850 B.C., in which it is written, in chapter 2, that in that place the land was
barren and the water was not yet good. If the location were correct, we could
notice that, about a thousand years after the event that destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah, the dramatic consequences of the destructive intervention of the
Elohim were still being registered in that territory.
The safest statement is found in the Book of Wisdom, in chapter 10, where
in verses 6 and 7 it is written about the territory of the pentapoles, the five
destroyed cities: "Fruit trees produce fruits that do not ripen." If we consider that
this book was written in the 1st century BC, we have to take into account what
the Bible states: in an interval of 1700 to 1800 years from the reported event,
that land had still not recovered its natural productivity.
In Deuteronomy 32:32, an interesting comparison is used: in an insult
directed at certain poorly identified characters, it is said that their grapes are
poisonous, like the wine produced by bitter clusters, which come from Sodom
and Gomorrah. The prophet Zephaniah, from the 7th century BC, describes that
territory as a field of thorns, salt mountains, perpetual desolation (2:9).
I would like to point out that, in recorded history, no normal fire in any
territory has ever determined the consequences described here. On the contrary,
it is known that fires make the land fertile and that after a few years they make it
even more productive than before. Therefore, everyone is free to draw their own
conclusions about what may have happened in that valley.
Upon concluding the chapter, I must state that the biblical Elohim and the Malachim are, in fact, a
multiplicity of flesh and blood individuals, who eat, drink, walk, get tired, and get dirty, needing to
wash themselves, rest... and, ultimately, die like Adam.
Anyone who wants to consider them, respectively, as God and angels is
naturally free to do so, but on the condition of forgetting what the Bible narrates
about them, that is, on the condition of "concealing" the meaning of the text,
attributing senses to them that do not exist, what "tradition", or rather, what
"traditions" have done. However, the objective exposed in this work and in the
other books that have already been published is precisely to try to remove the
layers and that veil of mystery, which has been extended for centuries, to hide
what was not, and what is not, considered acceptable by doctrines.
 Other hypothetical spiritual entities: angels,
giants, Satan, and flying machines.
Bible refers to a multiplicity of other distinct beings, known by various
names and organized in hierarchies, which are indicated there according to their
function and physical typology, both with generic names and with proper names.
Here we recall some of them: Nephilim, the giants, also known as Refaim,
Anakim, Emim or Zamzummim – while malaqim and shedim refer to group
names. But we also find the names Baal, Baal-Zaphon, Baal-Zebub, Baal-Peor,
Milcom, Melkart, Nibhaz, Tartan, Adrammelech, Anammelech, which refer to
proper names.
Groups and individuals known by other cultures are also known as:
Anunnaki, Igigi, Igigu, Dingur, Irsirra, Ilu, Ilanu, found among the
Sumerians and Akkadians;
Neteru, Shamshu-hor, among the Egyptians;
Viracochas, Quetzalcoatl, in Central and South American cultures;
Tuata de Danann and Asi, in parts of Northern Europe and Germanic
tradition;
Deva in Hindu culture, etc.
These correspondences confirm what we said above: the Bible is not unique
in the history of Humanity, but one of the many books that narrate the events of
"those individuals", who probably came from far away, arrived on planet Earth,
and carried out operations typical of colonizers from any era. Absurdly, we must
say that the most reliable parts of the Bible are precisely those that are shared
with the rest of Humanity, particularly with Sumerian and Akkadian narratives
that are not conditioned by a theological tradition that, as happened in the text in
question, distorted the meanings and their purposes.
Among the groups listed above, I mention the beings with gigantic heights,
the Nephilim, gifted with six fingers on each limb, hexadactyls. The Bible
speaks of them with absolute naturalness, also narrating how they fought in the
ranks of the Philistines, and therefore being hostile to Yahweh and his people
(2Sm. 21). I dedicated a profound analysis to these figures in my previous
works, accompanied by hypotheses about their origin.
However, there are two categories of presence that deserve to be mentioned
separately. As for the rest, and for a complete study on the subject, we refer to
the three books already mentioned.
The Malakim, often referred to as "angels," were individuals made of flesh and blood.
Encountering them was often dangerous, as they had needs such as eating, sleeping, resting, and
washing themselves. They could even be attacked and had to defend themselves. They belonged to
the intermediate levels of the hierarchy, functioning as spokespeople and guardians.

Probably corresponded to the Igigi in Sumerian and Akkadian culture,

having nothing to do with the spiritual entities mentioned in doctrinal tradition.
As mentioned above, some of them constantly followed Yahweh as companions,
even being responsible for organizing encampments. In the case of the
malachim, Hebrew philology provided confirmation for my hypotheses, stating
that the Hebrew term refers to anyone who carries out a task, therefore referring
to concrete individuals and not spiritual entities. Over time, theology developed
the idea of wings for them, approximately around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
Still, regarding the concrete reality and potential danger of malaquins, we
remember that in the early centuries, the Church advised women to participate
veiled in assemblies where these individuals were present. Don Pierangelo
Gramaglia writes about this: "The requirement for women to cover their heads
could also be motivated by the fear of provoking intense sexual desires in
angels, who were easily aroused by young girls with uncovered heads. [...]"An
exegete Annie Jaubert refers to some texts from Qumran, which affirm that
angels are present in the group of the faithful, and that they enter into
communion with them during worship. For this reason, it is necessary to avoid
any type of sexual contamination (Tertullian, De Virginibus Velandis, Ed. Borla,
directed by Don Pierangelo Gramaglia, professor of Patrology, Biblical Hebrew,
and Biblical Greek at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy in Turin).
Furthermore, in the treatise on Berakot, Blessings, it is written: "A woman's hair
represents sexual arousal" (Annie Jaubert, Le voile des femmes, in New
Testament Studies, Cambridge University Press).
A reflection of this precaution is perhaps found in the First Letter to the
Corinthians by the apostle Paul, in which Chapter 11 states that women had to
cover their heads as a sign of submission to authority, namely, to power, because
of the angels, and not out of respect for God.
The physical appearance of those individuals and their striking resemblance
to ordinary people is also documented in the Letter to the Hebrews (13:2), where
followers of the new Christian faith are reminded not to forget practicing
hospitality, because "some, by practicing it, unknowingly entertained angels". In
conclusion, the apostle seems to want to remind his readers that, in addition to
other virtues, hospitality should be practiced.
Sometimes, foreigners who requested hospitality were actually members of
the ruling group and therefore, there should be no risk of not welcoming them
well. And I cannot conclude the paragraph about the Malaquins without
mentioning the prince of fallen angels, who is called, depending on preference,
Satan or Lucifer. In the book titled "Il Dio alieno della Bibbia," I dedicated an
entire chapter to documenting his non-existence in the Old Testament.
The term Satan did not indicate the prince of demons, but rather a simple function that was
temporarily assumed by various characters and, at times, under direct indication from Yahweh,
who had the typical role of an accuser or prosecutor who acted as an adversary. There is no
relation to the later invented spiritualistic demonic entity.
This is also one of the many truths recognized by Hebrew philology as clear
and evident.
The second category of supposed spiritual entities is represented by the
cherubs, to whom I dedicated entire chapters in my previous works, given the
particular specificity of the subject. Far from being angelic entities like the
seraphim, they were not even living creatures, but mechanical objects or
machines that can be divided into two categories with distinct aspects and
functions. Those described by Ezekiel were flying machines, which the Old
Testament describes very well, both when they moved autonomously and in
combination with Yahweh's means of transportation, such as the kavod, ruach,
and merkavah. The second category refers to the cherubs on the Ark of the
Covenant. In summary, what has already been extensively explained and
documented in the above texts, we can say that the cherubs:
They are coupled to blazing blades/circles that spin rapidly;
when they do not move autonomously, they can (should?) be transported
in a properly built car, according to a well-defined project;
wheels that can move in all directions without turning;
a circular central part that spins and turbines rapidly;
they can move in zigzag, performing movements identical to the various
modern descriptions of unidentified flying objects;
they have a flat base to support themselves;
when they are shown in action, they functionally evoke various animal
figures;
when they are connected to Yahweh's car, they have, underneath them, a
space in which at least one person can pass, who moves and performs
functions;
they are equipped with structures that cover and protect them when
closed, and are used to fly when open;
when they move, they produce a noise that can be heard from a distance.
When they move, they are accompanied by all those manifestations that
one would expect from a mechanical means equipped with propulsion
systems and perhaps with characteristics typical of a technology superior
to ours today, with deafening noise, energy emission, and halos that
surround the object. They are a means on which the Elohim sit, park, and
fly, performing agile and fast movements. They move together with the
Elohim's main means of locomotion, but also independently, as appears in
the succession of movements described in Ezekiel 8-10-11.
A confirmation of the automatism of the cherubim is found in the analysis
made by the philologist Luigi Moraldi, in "I Manoscritti di Qumran", UTET,
Turin, in text 4Q Sl 40, fragment B. It reveals some very evident elements when
the texts speak of "divine breeze", which refer to the noise that accompanies the
chariot of Yahweh, and when it is said that the cherubim "bless", referring to the
targum of Jonathan, according to which that expression indicates that the
cherubim produced "sounds", or rather noises like those described by Ezekiel,
although the noise immediately ceased when the cherubim stopped.
The second category, represented by the cherubim of the Ark of the
Covenant, was composed of structures that belonged to a radio communication
system, which also used portable instruments such as the ephod, a term that is
never translated in the Bible but which I extensively discussed in "Non c'è
creazione nella Bibbia." This allowed for communication at a distance when one
was far from the main instrument, the Ark of the Covenant. For example, this
happened with David (1 Samuel 23), who, when he found himself in difficulties
during battle, asked his assistant to bring the ephod, and only after having it at
his disposal could he contact Yahweh, asking for directions on what to do.
Why does the term cherubim designate two categories of instruments that
are so different, both structurally and functionally? Because the root krv applies
to everything that, in some way, correlates with the act of covering, since flying
machines were equipped with wings that, when closed, covered the vehicle,
while those of the Ark were elements that covered themselves, from the moment
they were located on the lid itself.
Also here Hebrew philology, already mentioned earlier, provides
confirmation by writing that the Hebrews always knew, through the Talmud,
that the cherubs are robots used to protect the Ark of the Covenant, as well as its
precious and dangerous content. In short, the Ark was a technological
instrument, built according to a well-defined technical model, directly provided
by Yahweh to Moses, being used both as a means of communication and as a
weapon. It should be touched and handled only by trained and capable
individuals, as it was dangerous. Anyone who touched it without the proper
precautions could be immediately electrocuted (1 Samuel 6 and 2 Samuel 6).
The Elohim possessed and used this technology, as did those who we could
define as their subordinate officials, the malaquins, a topic analyzed in my
previous book.
 How can a religion be born from analogous
conditions?
In my previous works, I explained the phenomenon known as the "cargo
cult", showing how, after World War II, and under the gaze of anthropologists, a
cultural and ritual system was born that originated from the encounter between
primitive populations of Pacific islands and American military airplanes and
their pilots.
I would now like to illustrate the developments that can be subject to
intelligent programming, which aims to take advantage of the situation for its
own benefit and manages to achieve its objective, just like what happened in
biblical stories.
As always, let's pretend that I arrive - willingly or forced - on a planet or an
unknown and wild territory of my own planet. I know that, most likely, I will
have to stay there for the rest of my life. I arrive with only a small portion of the
technologies available to the civilization I come from, and with these limited
equipments, I have to solve the concrete problems related to the primary need
for survival.
The planet/territory where I arrive is inhabited by cultures and civilizations
that are definitely less evolved. Therefore, I will appear as a much superior
entity, both in terms of the resources and the knowledge at my disposal. I will be
seen simultaneously as wise, powerful, and intimidating, possessing a
knowledge that sometimes can act in almost magical ways on individuals and
the environment. In certain circumstances, I will even demonstrate the ability to
predict events such as eclipses, and perhaps lead them to believe that I caused
them, after which I will avoid their disastrous consequences and restore what is
considered to be normalcy. All of this will put me in a situation of undeniable
and unattainable superiority, that typical supremacy that knowledge displays in
the face of ignorance. Let's suppose that I, as a colonizer, am an unrepentant
materialist, who doesn't believe in anything and whose fundamental, or better
yet, only objective is to spend the rest of my life as comfortably as possible. In
order to live this way for the years that biology grants me, I realize the need to
accumulate goods and material wealth, which I should be able to dispose of at
my own will, both in terms of quantity and time.
Therefore, my objective will be to possess a lot and know that I can have
access to these things forever, le-'olam, biblically speaking, or in other words,
for a "long time," at least for the duration of my life, which happens to be longer
than the natives I encountered on the planet or territory where I arrived. Thanks
to this particularity, I will let the inhabitants of the place believe that I am
eternal, something they will convince themselves of, as their generations
succeed while I remain.
As the availabilities and material assets of the planet/territory are necessarily
scarce for me to achieve my objective, which is purely concrete and material, I
have to act immediately in two directions: first I need to find collaborators,
because I cannot do everything alone; and, in a future perspective, I have to
think about minimizing the number of possible rivals in the monopoly of what is
commonly defined as wealth, that is, a set of material goods that also includes
energy sources, which I need to produce what I need and also to increase my
power, with the resulting benefits.
To achieve the first objective, the recruitment of collaborators, I will
establish privileged relationships with a small number of carefully chosen
individuals. Having the necessary knowledge, I will be able to perform
biomedical operations on some specimens, making them more receptive and
capable of understanding and executing orders. By imparting a portion of my
knowledge to them and doing so gradually in order to establish a closer
relationship, they will inevitably be endowed with some autonomy of decision.
With a few, very few, it will be an open, clear, and explicit relationship,
meaning they will know the "truth" and share my goals, benefiting from their
respective privileges, albeit to a limited extent compared to mine. I will refer to
these individuals as "initiated."
In order to achieve the second objective - preventing and reducing the
possibility of potential rivals that inevitably emerge over time - my closest
collaborators and I will employ force and use increasingly sophisticated and
effective systems, influencing the cultural aspects of that social group and
consequently, the minds of the subordinates. My accomplices will be aware of
my objectives and will be well rewarded with the power and wealth that I will
grant them, differently and proportionally, according to their dedication and
results. It will be they themselves who will subsequently develop content,
constructing an articulated theoretical system that will primarily develop when I
am no longer alive, using it to perpetuate the power system for their own benefit,
based on structures organized in rigid hierarchies.
My collaborators and their successors, even in my absence, will build and
spread a "belief", a series of truths that will find validation in the fact that they
originate from a superior entity, with which, probably, I pretended to be in
contact, and from which the exclusive powers derive. This doctrinal body will
contain instructions and knowledge, which aim to guide the minds and
consciences of the subordinates/followers towards objectives that do not oppose
those shared with the few chosen ones.
The subordinates/faithful should believe that existence has different
purposes and meanings, and, above all, higher than survival and material well-
being. Therefore, it will be taught that the possession of earthly goods should not
be considered an end but only a means, stating that those goods bind and
condition the Human being, preventing him from reaching his true objective,
which would be the acquisition of a "spiritual," "transcendent," "non-material"
fulfillment, which, in reality, was never very well explained. This objective will
be left vague, first and foremost due to the obvious inability to define it in detail,
as no one knows anything about it, but also because of the fascination and
attraction that mystery exerts on the minds of the natives, who are kept in the
dark. Rewards and punishments will be promised, threats will be made, there
will be violence, as well as compassion and understanding, alternating behaviors
that will confuse and intimidate, creating a feeling of complete dependence
among the subordinates/followers in relation to the unpredictability of decisions
made at the higher level.
It will be taught that it is necessary to work on and act upon oneself in order
to acquire the ability to stand out from the diabolical slavery that is material
possession, in favor of a definitively higher and dignified outcome. Suffering,
hardship, accepted pain with serenity, and even "sanctified" renunciation,
practiced and desired, distance and the spirit of sacrifice will be the means
through which the true objective is pursued and achieved, namely the status of a
spiritually fulfilled creature, whose end is not necessarily achieved in this life
and, for this reason, is not verifiable or achievable here by the majority of
people.
Will be invented a "place" or a "situation" where the process finds its
conclusion, and the correct behavior its respective reward, a paradise, a nirvana,
a non-world, a place that cannot be defined spatially, not identifiable and
variable, provided with all positive and seductive characteristics - a fair, correct,
eternal, infinitely rewarding ending for the renunciations and "good" choices
practiced here.
While the majority of the people will adapt, some more and others less, and
some in a different way, trying to follow the indicated path, the few who share
the "true" knowledge and consciously collaborate in spreading illusion will take
advantage of the only goods that interest them, real and concrete, precisely those
that will be delivered to them by their subordinates/followers/docile and
convinced individuals. This can happen through voluntary donations, but also
with the help of additional deceptions that, in a chain, I and my "priests," as I
will call them, will develop over time.
Self-induced conviction will prevent the countless inconsistencies present in
the elaborated theorem from being seen, while contradictions will go unnoticed.
If necessary, they will be wrapped in the concept of the inscrutability of
mystery, which encompasses the unknowable. It is clear that all stubborn
opponents, who could pose a serious problem to the invented "truth"
transformed into untouchable dogmas, will be eliminated or silenced in any way.
Physical elimination, scorn, denigration, destruction, and demolition will be
practiced not only against opposing ideas but also against individuals who dare
to express them, using the instruments that civilization makes available over
time, from burning at the stakes to media ridicule.
One of the positive and especially useful consequences will be the almost
natural fact that many of the subordinates/followers, spontaneously, will become
unconscious collaborators themselves, because they will be convinced of the
"truth" contained in the doctrinal system and will be carriers and autonomous
disseminators of it. Essentially, they will work for the cause without asking for
retribution here and now, convinced that they are taking care of that
otherworldly purpose that they feel as the true and only objective of life.
Individuals will also present themselves on the scene, convinced that they
have "seen" the latest realities, as they will be revered and considered witnesses
of the truth.
These collaborators will act in good faith, completely and absolutely, by
personal choice. Finally, I would do the same myself if I found myself in that
situation and had those objectives.
As always, I - who am a rationalist materialist, cold, arid, and unsympathetic
- pretended to, but by observing the past and the present, I have the impression
that the creators of religions in general, and particularly of the Judeo-Christian,
did not pretend. However, that is not what I am concerned with, and I
immediately return to the Bible to show that it does not deal with God, does not
speak about Creation, nor the creation of Man, not even the Original Sin and
everything that derives from it.
 From non-creation to the cross, Adam and
Eve did not give rise to Humanity.
In the book Non c’è creazione nella Bibbia, I analyzed the first chapter of
Genesis to document how it does not talk about creation and even less about
creation from nothing, not even in the first verse, which doctrinal tradition
translates with the expression that we all know: "In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth [...]."
I say, right from the start, that the Hebrew meaning is not this. Before
synthesizing the content of this narration, I want to clarify some
misunderstandings, for example: I do not know how the origin of the Universe
occurred, whether it was created by God with a unique and instantaneous act, or
if the Big Bang happened, or if it is more correct to talk about string theory, as
science has been doing in recent years. I do not know what happened at the
beginning, nor do I even know if it is correct to speak of a beginning, since this
could simply be a requirement of our neurophysiological system, which needs to
represent and describe reality according to modalities that are understandable to
our mind.
As it is commonly known, nobody truly knows how the Universe originated,
with people of faith believing it to be the unmistakable product of a divine
creative act, while science simultaneously develops doctrines and hypotheses
that change over time as our knowledge of physics and astrophysics progresses.
I do not express an opinion on either position since it is not within my
expertise. In this state of not knowing, and while awaiting the correct and
documented response, I will simply state clearly that the Bible does not mention
creation, or rather, it does not concern itself with that event. I would even say
that the Elohim themselves did not know anything about it, as they were not and
are not God, as clearly stated throughout the Old Testament. Instead, they
formed a group of individuals who divided the Earth among themselves,
originating from a place unknown to me and of which I have no idea, since the
Bible does not mention it. However, in my aforementioned book, I decided to
include a cuneiform tablet (NBC 11 108) translated by four scholars of
Sumerian Studies, which states that when they were not on Earth, the Sumerian
and Akkadian Annuna, the biblical Elohim, had a celestial dwelling where there
was no vegetation.When they arrived here, they chose a place to settle, and from
that moment on, the narration of the Book of Genesis begins, a story that the
Elohim themselves must have transmitted to the so-called priest-kings who were
chosen, from time to time, as representatives and to whom they had delegated
part of their power, exactly as in the hypothesis I previously illustrated.
I summarize here almost 80 pages of analysis dedicated to the theme in the
previous work, to which I refer and to all textual deepening with the respective
philological documentation, to say that the Elohim, the supposed God, created
nothing. The Hebrew verb bara never means "to create" in any of the times it is
used in the Old Testament, but rather "to intervene to modify a situation"
according to its own demands, and among the other meanings I cite the
following: "to cut", "to shape", "to separate" and even "to fatten". Contrary to
what several preachers assert, the verb bara often does not have God as the
subject.
The Elohim, in the place that was pre-established for them, carried out all
those operations that any colonizer is obligated to do to ensure the possibility of
survival in a new territory. Genesis tells us that they created, first of all, a water
reserve, carrying out a large hydraulic project, thus benefiting the lowlands and
adapting them for experimental cultivation of edible plants and for the rearing of
animals for their sustenance.
I have already pointed out the countless inconsistencies present in the Bible,
and when it comes to those famous seven days of creation, I highlight one
particularly glaring one, even because of its various implications, which will be
the subject of more detailed future work. In verse 2 of the first chapter, on the
first day, God, the Elohim, says: "Let there be light," then separates it from the
darkness and calls the light "day" and the darkness "night."
In verse 6, on the second day, the completion of the hydraulic engineering
work is narrated, which in the Bible was defined with the same term that is used
nowadays, for example, to describe the great Aswan Dam, raqia, which has
nothing to do with the poetic image of the firmament, which was skillfully
introduced to hide the raw and, at the same time, fantastic reality of the
narrative, in which the complete description of the engineering operation can be
found in the book mentioned at the beginning of the chapter.
In verse 11, on the third day, the supposed God commands the earth to bring
forth all kinds of vegetation. And only in verses 14-17, on the fourth day, God
places the Sun and the Moon in the sky to divide the light from the darkness,
that is, the day from the night. But hadn't this division already been made on the
first day? We wonder: how was it possible to distinguish the day from the night
before the existence of the Sun and the Moon? How was it possible for green
plants to be born, grow, and germinate on the third day without the presence of
sunlight, which only arrived on the fourth day? On the fifth day, the animals
arrive, and the following day the narration of the so-called creation of Adam
appears, which I will discuss shortly.
The inconsistencies are clear, but setting aside any potential errors and
confusion on the part of the scribes, we retain that the Elohim carried out and
activated a true installation, which was supposed to be simultaneously a
command center and a kind of experimental laboratory, with the purpose of
producing the essential food for individuals of flesh and bone, just like
themselves.
I refer to a future study on the analysis of the issue of lights, which
illuminated and at the same time marked the temporal sequence of events in that
experimental laboratory - could it be a timed artificial lighting system? - to
immediately move on to the analysis of the "fabrication" of Adam and Eve.
 It was not by chance that I used the term "manufacturing," because, just as in
the Bible there is no mention of the creation of heaven and earth, it is equally
clear that there is also no mention of the "creation" of Man.
I do not hesitate to declare that I start from a premise that is clear and
unequivocal to me: the biblical text contains the synthesis of various genetic
engineering operations. This statement, which may raise perplexity, is confirmed
by Hebrew philology, cited several times, which states how the Hebrews always
knew that those texts refer to molecular biology operations conducted on the
genetic heritage of hominids, using portions of DNA from the Elohim.
To tell the truth and maintain the integrity of the information, I must
mention that Hebrew philology states that the genetic engineers were not the
Elohim, but the Rofim, primarily those belonging to the Hebrew people
themselves. These philologists obtain this information from Talmudic literature.
However, the Bible does not mention these Rofim and instead mentions the
Refaim, who are never associated with the creation of man. Without any
possibility of error, it attributes the paternity of these experiments in the
biomolecular field to the Elohim. I observe, therefore, that Hebrew Talmud and
Hebrew Bible do not agree on this aspect, but this is not within my competence,
and I do not concern myself with it. It will be left to Israeli exegetes to find a
possible reconciliation.
In my work, I focus on what is written in the biblical text and what I am
interested in highlighting, even putting aside the contradictions that the
philologists themselves highlight in the texts of tradition, it is this undeniable
fact: in a distant past, on planet Earth, there were those who carried out genetic
engineering operations to accelerate the evolutionary process of hominids, thus
generating a species endowed with characteristics that made it compatible, in
various aspects, with its creators.
In this work, I am specifically referring to the genetic operation that led to
the creation of Adam and Eve, as the Old Testament specifically addresses this. I
will now give a brief overview of what we will soon see: the two members of
the famous couple are not the progenitors of humanity, but rather the patriarchs
of a special human group, intentionally produced to work in that experimental
laboratory I mentioned before, the gan-eden, or the "walled and protected garden
in Eden," which is the traditional term used to describe the "earthly paradise." I
present here a summary of the complete action, which I direct to those who are
interested in further exploring the subject in the cited texts.
The Elohim decide to create Adam using their own tzelem, a term that
literally means "that which contains the image," of the Elohim in this case. It
derives from the Hebrew root tzalam, meaning "to cut," and contains within it
the clear indication of it having been "cut out" (Genesis 1:26-27). Therefore, this
tzelem (cut out) was inserted into the afar, which was already present on Earth,
that is, in the DNA of the hominids (Genesis 2:6).
In this way, we learn that Adam contains a portion of the genetic heritage of the Elohim, and
that he was truly fashioned in their own image and likeness.
 The Bible also informs us that originally, only the male of this special group
was produced. In Genesis 2:15, it states that Adam (male) was "taken and
placed" in the Garden of Eden, so we cannot think that he was made there, but in
another place. The choice was likely imposed by the need to produce a worker
who would work for the Elohim, and the physical structure of the male was
naturally more suited for this purpose.
I would like to point out a curiosity that may even be funny and is, in any
case, absolutely revealing of the behaviors and real objectives of those
colonizers/governors who want us to believe they are the only God: only with
the passing of time did the Elohim - "and by the grace of these" - realize that for
that male, the assistance/proximity/company of animals was not enough, and
therefore decided to provide him with a companion, the female, whom we know
as Eve (Gen. 2:20). How did they proceed to create her?
At this point in the narration, the term "tzela" appears, which is traditionally
translated as "rib," and it is the part of Adam that the Elohim used to make Eve
(Gen. 2:21-22). Let's clarify.
Tzelem is an element of the genetic heritage of the Elohim, while tzela is an
anatomical element of the Adam, traditionally identified as the rib. To better
understand, I explain that tzela appears more times in the Bible, indicating "a
side part" (Ex. 25:12; Ex. 26:20; 1 Kings 6:5; 1 Kings 6:15; 1 Kings 7:3; Ez.
41:5; Ez. 41:26; Jer. 20:10). In the description of Eve's creation, the Bible says
that the Elohim Yahweh took "one of the side parts" of the male, not "the" side
part, or half or rib or anything. Therefore, we are facing an extraction of
something that is not well identified, made from indeterminate parts. However,
one element that we cannot overlook is the following: the biblical text (Gen.
2:21) states that, before doing this, Yahweh induced Adam into a "deep sleep."
Finally, we understand that, after the extraction, Yahweh "closed the flesh in its
place" (Gen. 2:21).
The description is clear: the Elohim anesthetize the male Adam, operate on a
curved lateral part, extract something, suture the wound, and with the material
they extracted, they create the female. All these acts performed successively lead
us to think, therefore, of a quite bloody operation that required anesthesia and
suturing. Considering this data, I believe that "tzela" could indicate the "lateral
and curved part," that is, the iliac crest, or perhaps even a rib, from which stem
cells are currently harvested, multipotent and indicated for cloning, with a small
surgery that requires anesthesia, local or general, as currently practiced.
If the description of this operation were found in a popular science
magazine, there would be no doubt about the meaning of the content. The
problem is that it is found in the Bible, and the need to maintain the "traditional"
dogmatic doctrine requires declaring that it must be read allegorically. Once
again, the so-called "tradition" tries to obscure the explicit meaning of the text.
On the contrary, I place the event within that great, absolutely realistic mosaic
that takes shape before the reader's eyes, free from conditioning and capable of
embracing even the unexpected with an open mind.
 The Elohim decided to create a worker endowed with intelligence and the
necessary capabilities to collaborate closely with them in that specific situation.
We cannot be sure that this operation was performed in what theological
tradition calls the "earthly paradise", or gan-eden. I reaffirm what is written in
Genesis 2:15: "Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of
Eden to work it and take care of it." We clearly read that he was "taken" and
"put" in a place, which we should assume is necessarily different from where he
was taken from, otherwise the sentence wouldn't make sense. Therefore, it
seems that Adam was not created there, but in another place, while Eve, who
was created later in Genesis 2:18, could have been produced there in the Garden
of Eden. Without delving into the complexity of the problem here, I will simply
highlight that about 200,000 or 250,000 years ago, the Elohim had begun the
hybridization experiments through which the Homo sapiens species was formed.
This dating resonates with the hypotheses developed by genetic scientists who
place the birth of Homo sapiens in that period.
In the large scope of evolution, which led Man to become as we know him,
the Elohim provided a specific contribution by performing genetic operations
aimed at accelerating the evolutionary process of primates up to ourselves. Just
think of our closest relatives - primates like chimpanzees or gorillas - who have
essentially remained stagnant from an evolutionary standpoint for three or four
million years, while the Homo genus made sudden, rapid, and above all
extraordinary leaps. The Bible tells us about these continuous experiences and
the Talmud confirms the existence of this knowledge in past millennia.
What does science say about searching for the
so-called missing link?
The researcher Dr. Pietro Buffa, a molecular biologist and associate
investigator at King's College London, is conducting a retrospective analysis of
theories on human evolution and reveals some interesting data that I summarize
here, while also recommending reading the full version (the Italian version is
available at www.scienzaeconoscenza.it).
In stark contrast to the creationist religious doctrine, which is currently
experiencing an anachronistic revival, some strands of reformed religious
thought coincide with Darwin, who dethroned Man from his pedestal and placed
him within the rational schemes of his biological identity. It is necessary to
acknowledge that the Darwinian theory presents evident obscure and
contradictory points, which leave many aspects of evolution unexplained,
therefore requiring revisions and further investigation.
The support from fields of study such as Genomics, Molecular Biology,
Bioinformatics, and Paleoanthropology has a crucial role nowadays, enriching
Evolutionism with new knowledge and propelling scientists in this sector
towards new frontiers. Darwin's theory has therefore given way to a
multidisciplinary research program, generally known as Neo-Darwinism, which
is currently the most accredited bioevolutionary theory by the international
scientific community. This has caused the Catholic Church to redefine its
position regarding the evolutionary processes of life and bring its theological
teachings closer to the most recent scientific discoveries. As mentioned above,
many Protestant churches, on the other hand, continue in a desperate anti-
evolutionary struggle, advocating for a less and less sustainable creationist
hypothesis.
Regarding this, I cannot help but highlight the true absurdity of the alleged
infallibility of biblical texts, based on incorrect, I would even say false, contents
presented and affirmed by the doctrine that invented them. In other words,
creation exists because it is written in the Bible!...
However, the Bible never really speaks of creation, and therefore, the
supposed infallibility would have to be attributed to its true content - the one we
are dealing with, which ranges from non-creation to genetic engineering.
Dr. Buffa remembers how Professor Waltke, a theologian, lost his chair at
Reformed Theological Seminary for stating that several pieces of evidence in
favor of biological evolution are indisputable nowadays. He believed that
continuing to deny this reality would make the Protestant Church abnormal, a
strange group incapable of interacting with the world.
However, the theory of evolution is not without criticism, and the most
pertinent is the one that highlights the gaps in fossil documentation, which lack
many links, resulting in an incomplete chain where not all phases are
documented and where several intermediate stages have not been found,
including those that should document the transition from primates to humans. In
fact, classical Darwinism, which always proposed a gradual evolution of living
species, has been surpassed by scientific research and today survives exclusively
in pseudoscientific debates, popular culture, and anti-evolutionary criticisms
from non-experts.
The fossil documentation actually shows that species tend to preserve their
characteristics almost unchanged for a very long period, called stasis, and then
suddenly change under the pressure of opportune "engines of evolution" that
work alongside the natural selection evidenced by Darwin. The changes that
lead to the formation of new species are generally fast and decisive, while
intermediate life forms have a relatively short lifespan, making them more
difficult to find in fossil documentation. How does this reality fit into the
examination of the biblical text and the interventions of the Elohim? How can
we reconcile new scientific discoveries with the fact that humans appear to be
the product of genetic manipulations? This is particularly visible in relation to
the physioanatomic organ that best identifies and defines our species.
Dr. Buffa explains that the size of the brain - without mentioning its
sophistication - increased from 440 cc in Australopithecus africanus to 1230 cc
in Homo sapiens. In analyzing the work of the molecular biologist, I comment
on the element that, in my opinion, stands out, as it determines the immediate
possible connection with what is revealed in biblical reading. Researchers from
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chicago published the results of a study
confirming that the extraordinary evolution that the human brain underwent is
the result of a "special event".
Dr. Buffa observes: "This is not an improvement of what existed before, but
a radical change in human biology, the cause of which must be sought within
our DNA. The formation of the human brain is guided by the expression of
various genes, but there is a small sequence with only 118 bases, inside
chromosome 20, which we now know plays a crucial role during embryonic
development, producing massive neuronal migration essential for the formation
of a truly human brain. Comparing this region with the same region found in
non-human primates, biologists realized in a 2005 study that they were facing
one of the genomic sites where, probably, the highest percentage of molecular
changes, mutations, are found in humans. In monkeys, the same region proves to
be lacking in changes when compared to that of older vertebrates, demonstrating
that in fact, the massive amount of modifications occurs exclusively in
hominids, quickly activating a very important molecular mechanism that we
now know to be the basis of brain development. This small sequence is called
Human Accelerated Region 1 (HAR1) and has been cataloged as the first in a
series of genomic regions exclusively found in humans, as well as being a
determinant in the process of hominid evolution.
This is what the molecular biologist writes and documents, with the
necessary citations from sources, in the work that I recommend to the interested
reader. This is also documented by Dr. Katherine S. Pollard in Le Scienze, in
August 2009. Furthermore, Dr. Buffa kindly informed me, confidentially, about
the existence of many HAR zones, and all of them are sequences that have
"strangely" undergone a very high percentage of mutations in our species
compared to monkeys.
(This article is developed in the book titled Adam, in which the investigator
in question is currently working, and therefore, is not yet available at the time of
the first publication of my work. The reader can easily find it later.)
Therefore, we are facing the biomolecular characteristics that are specific to
our species, which differentiate us from primates and allow us to consider, with
great plausibility, the initial hypothesis according to which the Bible and the
Talmud affirm that we are the result of genetic modifications produced by
certain individuals thousands of years ago. These changes made it possible for
the brain to develop and for the creation of a kind of living being that genetic
engineers used for their own purposes.
Darwinian evolution is not and cannot be considered an unquestionable
dogma, and even less so can Creationism, which, lacking foundation in the
Bible, is based on theological invention, using the so-called sacred text as a
pretext. Darwinism requires constant verification, and I feel the need to assert,
with increasing personal conviction, that the biblical stimuli are even more
interesting when we are willing to accept that they do not represent a unique
event, as the Judeo-Christian culture wanted us to believe throughout these
millennia. I have noticed that peoples from all continents of the Earth, from Asia
to Northern Europe, from Southern Africa to the Americas, tell us a story about
the children of the stars who arrived here and "created" Man, imparting some of
their knowledge to him, giving rise to civilizations, etc., etc.
The Bible is nothing more than one of the many texts that substantially
recount the same content, the same narration of our origins. When official
culture gets rid of the unsubstantiated theological elaboration and stops
considering as myths and fables the narrations that were left to us by the
preceding humanity, it will take a great step forward on the path to knowledge.
Fortunately, the number of official investigators willing to examine
hypotheses that can answer questions that traditional science, sometimes as
dogmatic as religion, cannot do so validly and convincingly, is constantly
growing.
Let us now return to Adam and Eve, to explain how theological thought has
acted to completely distort the text, as they were not created nor have they been
the progenitors of humanity. The doctrinal distortion became possible due to the
fact that the faithful, for the most part, do not read the Bible, which is clear
regarding what I will explain next: the story of Abel and Cain, known to all. In
previous works, I explained why the Elohim favored Abel's offering and
disregarded Cain's. Therefore, now I will simply provide evidence for the
statement made earlier, that Adam and Eve are not the progenitors of humanity.
After killing Abel (Gen. 4), Cain was not punished but simply cast aside,
and in that moment, he exclaims in terror: "Whoever finds me will kill me." But
who could this "whoever" be, since only his parents, Adam and Eve, were
supposed to exist on Earth?
The biblical narrative continues, informing us that he found a wife, had a
son, and built a city... But for whom did he build a city, if there were no other
men? Clearly, besides that family clan, the Earth was populated by other men,
there were other individuals, and I would add that Cain had reason to fear them.
His family was, let's say, cultured and civilized, because of their direct contact
with the Elohim, for whom they worked in the garden of eden, so they enjoyed a
level of knowledge clearly superior to the other individuals, who had not had the
same luck of being chosen to live in that undoubtedly privileged place. What
fear, or even terror, we would not have if, suddenly, we were thrown by
parachutes, alone, in the middle of a tribe in Papua New Guinea, where they still
live today as in the Neolithic period? This is the feeling that Cain must have
experienced when finding himself alone in the midst of individuals who, in
relation to him, were definitely "barbarians".
We have already discussed the division of the Earth into zones of influence,
and I highlighted how radical followers of doctrinal tradition are often forced to
come up with explanations that clash with common sense. This story is no
exception. Followers of traditional thinking argue that Adam and Eve are the
progenitors of the human race, and that the individuals Cain encountered are
actually other sons and daughters of the same primordial couple. Indeed, the
Bible states that they had other children, but this happened after Cain's
expulsion. Anyway, if we were to consider the doctrinal thesis to be true, we
should think that Cain would be afraid of being killed by his own younger
brothers or sisters, who were already outside the group, as they were born after
him and surely knew him. But that's not all, the inconsistencies that arise when
trying to give an explanation that supports the idea that Adam and Eve were the
progenitors of Humanity do not end here.
The expulsion of Cain from the Garden of Eden is often seen as the
consequence of a crime, and his reaction demonstrates the pain of the respective
punishment, which he experienced as a serious event. At this point, we wonder
what crimes his younger brothers and sisters had committed, who were already
outside? Were they also punished for acts about which the Bible tells us
nothing? Did they leave of their own free will? If they were already outside, why
did Cain fear joining them? In the end, the explanation given by tradition does
not even pass the most superficial examination, based on simple reading of the
biblical text, without requiring specific translations.
This "keyboard-made lecture" allows me to open a parenthesis, brief but
curious, and invite the reader friend to pay attention to Genesis 4:26, to verify
that, as previously clarified, Cain and Abel never knew Yahweh. The truth is
that this name appears only during the time of Enosh, grandson of Adam and
Eve, that is, when Abel had already died and Cain had long been expelled from
that tribal clan, having generated numerous offspring. So, in what language was
that name pronounced, about which we know absolutely nothing? What
language did these characters speak?
The only thing we can be certain of is that it was not Hebrew, which
appeared only a few millennia later. Therefore, the following questions arise: to
which of the Elohim did the members of that family clan address themselves
before they began invoking the name of Yahweh, the so-called one God of
monotheism? In other words, how does verse 26 reconcile with verses 3 and 4,
which I invite you to read? Who caused this confusion in the text? Was it one of
the many distracted scribes who placed verses 25 and 26 in the wrong position,
or the Massoretes, the guardians of the "tradition," who, with the intention of
inserting their Yahweh everywhere, did not realize they named him in yet
another passage?
I remember the reference mentioned earlier, about the origins of numerous
errors and enormous gaps present in the biblical text, and I digress briefly on a
question that has already been analyzed: Did Yahweh participate in the creation
of Adam? Following verse 26, I affirm the thesis that has already been
presented, namely that he, the alleged God, had nothing to do with the genetic
engineering operation that produced that group of males and females, defined in
the Bible by the generic names Adam and Eve. If we read the Septuagint Bible,
written in Greek in the 3rd century BC, we will find a different inscription that
leaves us very curious. The ancient Greek text states that Enos "thought,
considered - elfizen - to invoke, to be called - epicaleistai - by the name of
Yahweh," while in the more recent Hebrew Masoretic text, it is said generically
that he "began to work "BCE., we find a different inscription that piques our
curiosity. The older Greek text states that Enos "thought, considered - elfizen -
to invoke, call by name - epicaleistai - the name of Yahweh," while the more
recent Masoretic Hebrew text simply says that "he began to invoke - call upon -
the name of Yahweh." If Enos "considered," meaning he thought about invoking
or introducing that name, then the question we asked earlier was legitimate.
Furthermore, I must add that the call to respect the so-called "tradition"
completely loses its meaning if we presume that the tradition was deliberately
created to hide the truth. Emphasizing once again that there are truly many
possible Bibles, I will close the parenthesis and return to the subject.
Just as with evolutionist and genetic questions, from an archaeological and
anthropological perspective there are also evidence that official science cannot
explain. It is widely believed that Sumerian civilization emerged fully formed in
history, socially organized, with writing, culture, technology, technical skills in
construction, agricultural knowledge, mathematics, and astronomy.
Just as with the evolution of Homo sapiens, with the Sumerians we are also
faced with a missing element or a missing link: where did they come from?
Where, how, and when did they acquire the knowledge that immediately places
them at the forefront? Who could have had this knowledge?
No, certainly not the barbarians that Cain feared. I would say it was Cain, on
the contrary, and his numerous descendants who were carriers of knowledge
that, from a modern perspective, we would define as multidisciplinary. In
chapter 4 of Genesis, it is written that after generating Enos, Cain became a
builder of cities, and we know that this was certainly not a job that could be
improvised, as it required, and still requires, specific abilities and, mainly, a
theoretical-practical culture, a know-how, that encompasses various disciplines.
The biblical narrative provides us with other elements capable of reinforcing the
hypothesis formulated about the origin of Sumerian civilization, such as, for
example, the ancestry of Adam's family, which was characterized by possessing
knowledge that extended to unexpected fields.
Among the direct descendants of Cain, we find Jabal, the father of those
who live in tents, which we can imagine as being the originator of an organized
system of livestock breeding, according to the circumstances of nomadic life.
Previously, we saw that Cain was a city builder, and within the same tribal clan,
we observed the existence of useful knowledge to establish various typologies of
social and economic organization, from nomadic to sedentary, which generally
implies a complex, articulated social structure, equipped with more or less
elaborate administrative systems, according to the size of the settlement and the
number of inhabitants.
However, we do not stop here, as we read that Jubal, brother of Jabal, was
the patriarch of all lyre and flute players, which testifies to some type of artistic
activity that is practiced with instruments whose production is only possible
thanks to knowledge that cannot be acquired suddenly. The manufacturing of
particularly complex musical instruments is certainly not a skill that we can
include among the instinctive abilities of the so-called primitive man. Even less
instinctive is the ability to work with metals, the analysis of the characteristics of
the territory, the extraction, purification, forging, modeling, etc., etc. - all
extremely complex processes that require a set of theoretical knowledge and
specific manual skills. Well, this also exists in the tribal clan that descends from
Adam and Eve, in which Tubal-Cain was the apprentice.
I would like to point out that both names mentioned repeat the same radical
element "ybl", which contains the idea of "leading," as we are dealing with
characters who spread that knowledge by "guiding" others in its acquisition and
application. The word "tubal" also originates from the same root, and its
combination with "qayin" makes it explanatory, as the root "qayin" means
"forger, blacksmith." Tubalcaim would indicate the one who "led," that is, who
initiated, continued, transmitted, and taught the activity of extracting and
producing metals.
We find ourselves here facing an interesting situation, characterized by well-
defined elements that I will try to summarize:
• Academic science evidences the unexpected emergence of Sumerian
civilization;
• In the Bible, we have the narrative of a tribal clan that becomes a numerous
people;
• This people possesses knowledge that encompasses the various fields that
 characterize human civilization; this people had its origin
• in one or more operations, with the application of genetic engineering,
carried out by individuals who possessed a knowledge and a technology
unimaginable in the times we are talking about;
• this people lived together with these beings for a long period, in an
absolutely privileged situation in various aspects; this people was instructed
by their "formers", precisely to be able to have a direct relationship with
them, based on the cognitive abilities indispensable for that effective
collaboration that was necessary for the Elohim.
Under these conditions, is it so unrealistic to think that the Sumerians were
nothing but direct descendants of that special race that the Elohim created,
precisely for that purpose? This would explain their sudden appearance on the
stage of history, previously unexplained. The truth is that, if Abraham truly
existed, he could easily have been a descendant of the Sumerians, since that
would be his area of origin, precisely the territory of Sumer, where his original
family continued to live because they decided not to follow Yahweh.
As previously mentioned, this case also does not require specific translations
or special philological analysis, as it is the combination of textual, historical, and
cultural elements that allows for considering this hypothesis or, at least,
formulating the question. I hope that scientific researchers will be interested in
exploring this hypothesis, which, in terms of genetic engineering, is capable of
providing answers to the questions that have not been answered so far.
It is a hypothesis free from prevalent dogmatism, free from the conditioning
of "tradition," and based on a secular interpretation of a text that, at least in its
fundamental parts, seems to contain indications for a path of knowledge and a
possible realistic reconstruction of the history of Humanity.
I understand well that Western culture is conditioned by centuries of
religious thought, which presents a certain distorted view of the Bible, and that
this view has determined the manifestation of supposed certainties that are
difficult to break down - the so-called "tradition", developed by measure and
that is still presented today as the sacred and inviolable prescription of truth.
I take this opportunity to remind once again an essential truth that the Bible
allows us to understand: that couple, Adam and Eve, did not give rise to
humanity. This acquisition has very serious consequences on the development of
religious thought that led to the New Testament, which we will discuss, but not
before examining another aspect of the events that took place in the so-called
earthly paradise, in the garden of Eden, probably the command center and
laboratory of the Elohim.
The biblical Garden of Eden was a walled and protected garden - garden as
an enclosure, translated by The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon - situated in Eden, where the Elohim cultivated all kinds of vegetation.
The term "gan" corresponds to the Persian "pairidaeza," from which the Greek
"paradeisos" is derived. This term was used by the Athenian historian Xenophon
to define the gardens of the Babylonian rulers. From the Greek "paradeisos"
comes the Latin "paradisum," from which our "paradise" is derived. The
meaning is always the same: a place limited by a fence, natural or artificial, that
protects it. The Gan-Eden must have been a kind of experimental garden, where
edible species were cultivated; however, there is no time here to document the
discoveries made by paleobotanists about the inexplicable speed with which
some varieties of cereals and vines appeared in the territory located between
present-day Azerbaijan and Iraq.
I refer to my previous work for anyone who may be interested in this
subject. It is important for me to highlight a truly stimulating parallelism here,
and thus I allow myself a detour to the aforementioned Homeric texts, because
over these years I have matured the conviction that the tales of the ancients, in
whatever literary form they are expressed, contain something true and often
bring with them common elements that mutually confirm each other.
In the Odyssey, Book VII, the strange garden of Alcinous, the king of the
Phaeacians, who descended directly from Poseidon, the Lord of the Waters, the
Greek equivalent of the Sumerian and Akkadian god Enki, is described. Reading
the Greek text carefully, we notice that it is a very special place. Starting from
verse 110, it is mentioned that on the outside of Alcinous' residence there was a
megas orkatos, a "large garden," with four acres – about 10,000 square meters –
enclosed and protected by a fence, erkos, that completely surrounded it and
where various types of trees were cultivated, such as pear trees, pomegranate
trees, apple trees, fig trees, olive trees, etc.
But mainly, it is said that the fruits never ran out, that they were present and
available throughout the year, both in winter and in summer. The text is
expressed as follows: "One pear appears after another, one apple after another,
and in the cluster of grapes another cluster, and one fig after another [...] a vine
is being planted while another part is ripening under the sun, the harvest is
already happening and another one is being stomped, but at the same time, there
are already green bunches that produce flowers, while the others are ripening
[...] and in addition, all types of vegetables are ripening."
The garden was flanked by two fountains, which provided water for
irrigation and consumption. All these structural elements are defined in the
Homeric text Aglaa dora, which means "Good Gifts" or "Admirable" from the
theoi, individuals who seem to be the Greek equivalents of the Elohim, Ilanu,
Anunna.
This marvel reminds me of a greenhouse where an artificial cultivation was
carried out, capable of ensuring continuous production. A garden where
advanced techniques were applied, a type of experimental soil where everything
was cultivated, just like in the Garden of Eden. I wonder if these Anunna-
Elohim-Theoi used agricultural techniques that they brought with them to
various places on the planet where they settled, directly or by having their
protected ones installed, such as the descendants of mixed blood, for example,
Alcinoe, Gilgamesh, the biblical Gibborim, born from the union between the
Elohim males and the Adam females (Gn. 6).
 Opening my mind, I still question: "Were the Homeric writings solely and
exclusively poetic compositions?" Why not notice other strange coincidences
between biblical narratives and Homeric poems? In the Iliad, Book XIII, we
have the god Poseidon, who disguises himself and assumes the appearance of
the seer Calchas. Mimicking in this way, he incites the Greeks to battle;
however, Ajax, son of Oileus, discovers the deception. When Poseidon leaves,
walking (verses 70-72), the hero states that it is not Calchas, clearly stating that
he recognized him because of the footprints and legs. And he concludes with
this statement: "The gods are recognizable." In the Bible, those individuals are
similar to men, although they possess physical characteristics that allow for easy
identification. We still remember Abraham's encounter with the three anashim.
Another extraordinary curiosity is found in Book XVIII (417-420): Hephaestus,
the one among the theoi who was occupied with the manufacture of metals,
limped and was assisted by two maidservants, of which some characteristics are
evident that leave us amazed. Homer describes them by affirming that they had
their minds in their chests and a voice, although we have no difficulty in
understanding that the maidservants, in general, thought and spoke.
It says even more: that they had a golden aspect, or rather a skin that should
resemble metallic reflections; and concludes the description with a specification
that leaves us amazed: that they were in every way similar to real girls. What
beings would these be, with a metallic appearance that, even if not "alive," had
the ability to think and speak? In no other description is something similar
defined in relation to the servants, who, however, are numerous in the Homeric
texts.
I conclude these Homeric references by noting that, as it has been written,
the theoi were individuals who seem to represent the Greek equivalent of
Elohim, Ilanu, Anunna. Miguel de Unamuno, already mentioned, writes (op. cit.
in the Bibliography) that the term theos, "probably was an adjective, a
characteristic quality" of those individuals, which was only later transformed
into a noun with the addition of the article, by rationalist thought.
In Sumerian, Akkadian, and ancient narrations in general, there are often
references to the "watchers" or "observers" that came from above. In the Greek
language, the verb "theaomai" precisely means the act of observing, and the
word "theoria" identifies a group of individuals sent to observe. The term
"theoi," in its adjectival meaning, refers to a category of beings who "observed,
controlled," and therefore governed over the peoples that were assigned to them,
as mentioned in the passage from Critias by Plato. So, could this be a reference
to the "watchers who came from above," as spoken about in the narratives of
peoples from all continents?
Heraclitus of Ephesus states: "Those who do not expect the unexpected will
never discover the truth." Let's always pretend that the peoples of different
continents have told us the story of "those individuals," and that they wanted us
to discover interesting things. Pretending costs nothing, and it could produce
results in terms of knowledge of our history; at the very least, it makes us reflect
on what has always been told to us as the scientific, historical, literary, or
religious truth to believe in.
In the hope of "knowing" we continue to "study", which is extraordinarily
fascinating. I do not hide that this raises a reflection in me, which I perceive as
very serious because of its implications on the possible existence of more truths
in the Homeric poems than in theological texts. In the former, we speak about
peoples and individuals, the theoi called "gods", who are very concrete, while in
theological texts we speak of an "entity" whose essence and characteristics are
born from the minds of those who elaborated them. I have already observed how
Professor Armin Kreiner, theologian and Catholic professor, about whom I will
speak more later, rightly writes that we know nothing about God.
I continue, facing the second fundamental aspect of theological thought:
Original Sin. In my previous works, I examined the biblical inconsistencies
present in the description of the two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil, in their positioning, and mainly in the confusion
regarding the ingestion of the fruit. To avoid repeating myself, I will summarize
the biblical narrative, remembering the curiosity previously mentioned,
concerning the fact that the Elohim originally produced only the male, to be
employed in their garden of Eden, while the female was made later. This was
because, evidently, they did not consider it necessary to have a group that could
reproduce autonomously in their command center.
However, the narration of temptation, which has the serpent as its main
character, provides an account of the conflict that exists between the
commanders of that territory/experimental laboratory.
The Sumerian and Akkadian authors, not conditioned by theological
thinking, had no difficulty in describing the controversies between the two
brothers who shared power, Enki and Enlil. The Genesis narrative that we are
concerned with is the Hebrew reinterpretation of those much older narratives, as
already mentioned regarding what Professor Wexler, from the American Jewish
University, wrote about it.
The biblical authors represented in the serpent, Enki, the adversary of the
commander, Enlil, because the former was responsible for biomedical activity
and, as such, the "true" father of Adam, the one who had made him and therefore
loved him in a certain way as his creature. The latter saw Adam from a greater
distance, considering him simply a worker who did not deserve any favoritism.
We saw how Eve was kindly "granted" to Adam, but for Enlil, the couple should
not reproduce or create a demographic development of those creatures in the
Garden of Eden.
At this point, it is useful to summarize the events. I repeat that, unfortunately
for us, the biblical writers did not provide sufficient attention in their work to
clarify aspects that are of paramount importance. The reading of passages from
the book of Genesis (1:27; 2:15; 2:18; 2:21), which speak of the formation of
Man through genetic engineering, present obvious inconsistencies, to which we
can only attempt the following hypothetical construction of the facts:
 The Elohim created Homo sapiens, males and females, with the ability to
reproduce.
They took a male named Adam, from a specific group, and placed him in
the Garden of Eden, with the role of working and taking care of the
territory.
Being only males, they certainly couldn't reproduce. It is suggested that the
term "Adam" is often used with an article, indicating that it was probably
not an individual, but a group, a prototype.
After placing all kinds of animals in the Garden of Eden, the Elohim
realized that the company of these animals was not enough for male Adam,
so they decided to give him a female.
Unlike what they did with the male, they didn't "put" a female in the
Garden of Eden from elsewhere, but instead "made" her there, using
something extracted. From the male himself - for the details of the surgery,
see Chapter "The technology of the Elohim" in the book "There is no
creation in the Bible".
From this, it can be deduced that reproduction was certainly not a primary
objective for that special group. The introduction of the female occurs for
reasons other than purely reproductive ones, otherwise they would have foreseen
her presence from the beginning. Probably, according to the method by which
the female was produced, they could have been sterile, as we can infer when
Adam and Eve have their first child, Cain.
In fact, the Bible says that they produced "with" (the help of) an Elohim,
whom the biblical writers identified as Yahweh himself (Gen. 4:1). Could they
not have done it alone? Is this the act that they should not have performed,
according to the commander of gan-eden, and which an Elohim, their antagonist,
made possible? Here, the element of conflict is introduced between the various
leaders, identified in the Elohim and the serpent, regarding how to treat that
particular group of Adam, and about the possibilities of autonomous
development that should or should not be granted to them.
One of the Elohim - the biblical serpent, the Sumerian and Akkadian Enki,
perhaps? - decides to give them autonomy, and as soon as they "know," that is,
experience this possibility they were afraid of (that is, they understand the
gravity of the act), they hide. I should note that the concept of "knowledge"
contained in the Bible has nothing to do with the meaning that exists in modern
culture, as biblical knowledge is the act of experiencing concretely, touching
with the hand, so to speak. Therefore, at that moment, they acquired the
possibility to concretely experience the positive aspects, the Good, and the
negative aspects, the Evil, of the new situation that was created.
In a congress held in December 2009 at the Ateneu Veneto in Venice, Prof.
Amos Luzzato observed that the Hebrew term for "Evil" in that passage of
Genesis clearly refers to the physiopathology of the human body. Therefore, it
does not refer to the ethical concept, nor to the acquisition of perception or
knowledge of what is just or unjust, but to the material and concrete
experimentation of the consequences of the new situation.
Both of them become aware of this and perform a very significant act
(Genesis 3:8): they cover their genital organs and hide from the eyes/sight of
Elohim. Clearly, Elohim would never have been bothered to see them naked.
What could have been the problem? They had been like that since they were
created! But this is precisely the interesting event: the two of them do not hide
from each other, but together, they hide from Elohim. They do not want the
commander to discover that now they "know," since they have had that
experience.
Still, the Elohim understood what happened, realizing that they were losing
control of the situation, so much so that they make this statement: "Adam has
become like one of us." And immediately they feel the need to prevent the
couple from having access to the Tree of Life, because if that were to happen,
they would be able to enjoy the same lifespan as the Elohim. Regarding this, let
us immediately say that it was not eternity, but a life that lasted le-'olam, "for a
long time," and that is precisely what the Hebrew expression means, because the
concept of eternity does not belong to the Bible, it is a later invention.
The Elohim lived for a long time, but they were not eternal. In previous
works, I analyzed the passages where the biblical authors state unequivocally
that the Elohim die, just like the Adam. What could the Tree of Life represent
then? How could they reach it after experiencing the Tree of Knowledge? Let us
not forget that the place where they were situated, the gan-eden, was a
territory/laboratory where experiments were conducted on the DNA of living
species. DNA is found in the innermost part of every living being, in the cell
nucleus. And how could a culture that did not know about DNA represent it?
What better image could be used than that of a tree on which life depends? And
where better to place that graphic and literary icon than in the center of the
"garden", where the fundamental elements of life were manipulated for
conducting the experiments.
It is conceivable, also, that the most important structure, the one where
genetic engineering activities were conducted, was actually located in the center
of that surrounded and protected place. After all, it was a choice whose practical
and strategic aspects are immediately understandable. Let's not forget that those
individuals fought among themselves for a long time, using destructive and
effective weapons, and for that reason, the structures where strategic and
sensitive activities were conducted had to be placed in particularly protected
places. Let's remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Tree of Life represented the possibility of manipulating DNA in order to
extend one's own lifespan. Nothing new in this statement, as contemporary
genetics is already doing just that in various parts of the world. The experiments
carried out with genetic heritage in order to prolong life are progressing at an
increasingly rapid pace. Those that were done at that time are potentially
documented by a translation hypothesis that Prof. Kamal S. Salibi of the
University of Beirut proposes for Genesis 6:3.
The one speaking is Elohim, also known as Yahweh, and the traditional
version that we all know mentions: "My spirit will not last forever in man, since
he is nothing more than flesh and his days will be 120 years." Professor Salibi
says that this translation is compromised by the vocalization done by the
Massoretes, who would have hidden the true meaning of those words, whether
deliberately or due to a lack of understanding of the text. The professor takes
older Semitic roots as reference and extracts the following meaning from those
verses: "I will no longer enrich Adam by pouring out my semen, he is flesh and
his life will be 120 years."
I do not insert here the philological analysis, which the reader can consult in
the text mentioned in the Bibliography. However, I observe that this translation
has the advantage of being absolutely consistent with the rest of chapter 6 and,
particularly, with the statement contained in verses 1 and 2, in which it is
exposed that the male Elohim considered the female Adam desirable and took
them for themselves as companions, as many as they wanted, and generating
children.
Therefore, the Bible asserts, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the spermatic fluid of the
Elohim was effectively poured into the female Adams.
This is what seems to confirm Professor Salibi's translation. His key to
interpretation contains another interesting aspect of coherence with the biblical
text, which is the duration of the lives of the so-called patriarchs. Before the
decision mentioned by the Lebanese professor in verse 6, the life of Adam's
descendants reached 800/900 years, while after the choice to no longer provide
them with the semen of the Elohim, it shortens progressively and relentlessly.
This is an unequivocal and very evident fact in the entire biblical narrative,
which must be read carefully until the stories of Abraham, who lived only 175
years, and Moses, who lived 120. I always pretend they existed.
The DNA of the Elohim guaranteed a life le-‘olam, as mentioned before,
meaning a very prolonged lifespan. What the chief of the Elohim wanted to
prevent was for Adam and Chawwah, genetically modified to serve and always
remain under his control, from discovering the possibility of reproducing with
the help of his rival Elohim and gaining access to genetic practices that could
ensure a lifespan equal to that of the Elohim. For that reason, he decided to
separate them, obviously not wanting to kill them since they were, after all,
living beings who had faithfully worked for and with him until then, although he
couldn't take any other risks.
Is it possible that DNA, always the same in terms of its biochemical
components, can contain such different lifespans? The answer is yes, and the
confirmation is right in front of our eyes, without needing to fantasize.
Let's take a look at the reality of life on Earth. The average lifespan of many
butterflies is approximately 15 days. The average lifespan of a turtle is 120
years, almost 43,800 days. This means that on this planet there are living beings,
turtles, that have a lifespan almost 2900 times longer than others, such as
butterflies. If we consider that in 10 hours we have almost 20 generations of
bacteria, we see that the difference in lifespan multiplies up to an astronomical
factor of 70,000 times. These differences are observed among living beings,
although they are, in any case, products of the same DNA, whose fundamental
structure is the same for all. Therefore, there is an undisputed fact: the same
structure, composed of the same chemical elements and molecules, produces
beings on the same planet that live 2900 or even 70,000 times longer than
others.
Let's take a look at the reality of life on Earth. The average lifespan of many
butterflies is approximately 15 days. The average lifespan of a turtle is 120
years, almost 43,800 days. This means that on this planet there are living beings,
turtles, that have a lifespan almost 2900 times longer than others, such as
butterflies. If we consider that in 10 hours we have almost 20 generations of
bacteria, we see that the difference in lifespan multiplies up to an astronomical
factor of 70,000 times. These differences are observed among living beings,
although they are, in any case, products of the same DNA, whose fundamental
structure is the same for all. Therefore, there is an undisputed fact: the same
structure, composed of the same chemical elements and molecules, produces
beings on the same planet that live 2900 or even 70,000 times longer than
others.
I therefore ask a question: why are there, in the face of this undeniable
evidence, "wise" individuals who disdain, with an air of self-sufficiency, the
longevity of biblical patriarchs, defining it as allegory or metaphor? Why are
there "wise" individuals who mock, with the same arrogance, the lifespans - as
described by Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived in the 3rd century BC, and
Berosus, a Babylonian priest and astronomer who lived between the 4th and 3rd
centuries BC - of the ancient rulers of the Earth?
With an average lifespan of 43,000 years, the life of those ancient beings
was only 600 times longer than that of humans, almost nothing compared to the
examples cited of 2,900 and 70,000 times. Therefore, if we want to effectively
assert that the difference in lifespan, which is 600 times, between these
individuals and humans is a myth or a fable, then what should we say about the
difference between a turtle and a butterfly, which is 2,900 times, or between a
turtle and bacteria, which is 70,000 times? What would the butterflies say if they
were told that on the same planet there exist beings whose life is 2,900 or 70,000
times longer than theirs, even if made with the exact same structural element,
DNA? Would they smile in the same way as those "wise" beings?
Is it possible to conclusively claim that those referred to by the two ancient
priests and astronomers originated from worlds where such lifespan was
considered normal? If the DNA of those beings was "alien" in relation to human
DNA, the hypothesis becomes even more plausible. I clarify that the term
"alien" means, literally, "belonging to others," "strange," as described in the
Devoto-Oli dictionary. Did the life of Yahweh, one of the Elohim, have that
duration? We cannot affirm or exclude it with enough certainty.
Regarding this, the aforementioned Prof. Buffa writes to me: "There are
organisms that show a completely different biological half-life, even though they
have the same polynucleotide structure of DNA. The structure is chemically
identical, but the biological information necessary for the organism to develop,
remain alive, and reproduce is very different, and geneticists have only started
decoding it a few years ago. In this matter, humans are also 'strange', there are
genes capable of prolonging lifespan, as they are heavily involved in controlling
the aging process, as many of them intervene in preventing telomere shortening,
etc. If we presume that evolved extraterrestrial biological entities knew how to
perfectly manipulate/add/activate specific regions of DNA in humans, then we
could think that it is possible, since humans, too, have... "
However, if we only rely on natural evolutionary processes, the question
would seem very forced and inexplicable.
Man is now discovering that many genes have a direct role in the regulation
of aging, and many others have an indirect role [...].
Considering all of this approach, I think that an intelligence free from
dogmatic behaviors, whether religious or scientific, should calmly accept that,
taking into account the undeniable earthly realities presented as a premise,
everything is possible, at least theoretically, and that it would be correct not to
dismiss a priori hypotheses that are not pleasing, preferring to keep them in
suspense and with an open mind.
Here is, then, what - with great probability and according to the textual
evidence from the biblical narrative - must have happened in the Garden of
Eden: the Elohim created Adam, who is not the progenitor of humanity, in any
location on the planet, and then they took him to their center/laboratory. After
some time, they produced a female for him, and against the orders of the
commanders, the Elohim geneticists gave the couple the possibility to
reproduce. The leaders, fearing that the couple could also have access to genetic
practices that granted a long life, took measures to avoid that risk, simply by
separating the two from that enclosed and protected place.
 What does Original Sin consist of, and in
what circumstances does it occur?
The answer seems to be obvious, as no sin has been committed.
The two, Adam and Eve, simply experienced the new situation determined
by those Elohim, represented by the notorious biblical serpent, who granted
them the possibility to discover and utilize one of the most natural and innate
functions in living beings, the ability to reproduce, whose importance is only
surpassed by the need to feed oneself to stay alive.
The expulsion from the Garden of Eden was not a punishment that
Humanity should carry as a mark, but rather a classic sententia post eventum,
that is, the recording and application of the consequences of a decision freely
made. Adam and Eve were not condemned to become mortal because of that
decision, as they already had that condition, just like the Elohim.
I remember the Bible itself narrating that the Elohim said that, from that
moment on, the Adam would become like them (Gen. 3:22), therefore, that act
neither introduced a dramatic and negative element like death, nor elevated the
Adam to the level of the Elohim. And if that had determined the so-called notion
of Good and Evil, the Elohim should have only been satisfied with the moral
growth of their creatures. But, on the contrary, I wonder why they themselves
did not think of providing them with this knowledge, so positive and useful for
their coexistence...?
Shouldn't it have been a primary goal of "God" to promote the moral
development of his creatures? Shouldn't he have endowed them with that notion
from the very beginning? Isn't the notion of Good and Evil necessary for making
free and responsible choices? Therefore, the Elohim, the supposed God of
tradition, should encourage it. However, we observe a reaction exactly contrary
to what one would expect. Far from being satisfied due to the hypothetical moral
growth of their subjects, the Elohim reveal themselves to be deeply concerned,
as they see this as a risk, a negative element, foreshadowing consequences and
developments that must be absolutely avoided. Nevertheless, we understand well
that it is not a matter of moral growth, since with the act of "eating the apple" we
do not have an increase in knowledge of ethical norms, but rather the acquisition
of material potentialities that a part of the Elohim was not willing to accept and
grant.
The Adamite workers were acquiring an untimely and also dangerous
independence. Finally, we became aware that the supposed God shows fear that
the Adams may live as long as he does.
The inconsistencies of theological vision and spiritualist elaborations are
increasingly evident and unsustainable. They tell us that God, on that occasion,
would have done everything to prevent Adam from attaining eternal life.
However, we were then taught that eternal life represents the pinnacle of the
divine promise. Isn't that exactly what God promises us, according to theology?
 But then, how does the Bible tell us that, from the moment everything
began, the supposed God of theology fears that Man can achieve a long life like
his? Isn't it a colossal contradiction devoid of any kind of logical sense?
Indeed, this is how it is. There are many so-called truths that the Judeo-
Christian theology, as well as those particular esoteric and gnostic currents
which are its obedient daughters, attribute to the God they themselves invented
from that book, making him constantly affirm things he does not say.
The Elohim did not create Man in the sense that they want us to believe,
because Adam and Eve are not the progenitors of Humanity, and the Elohim
never feared that Adam would obtain hypothetical eternal life, since it did not
belong to them, not even to them, who surely had a very long life compared to
the human scale, but in any case destined to have an end, death, just like us.
Adam was expelled from Gan-Eden because, at a certain point, he could
pose a real danger or, at the very least, create various practical problems in
managing the created context, especially since he had the assistance of the
Elohim who were more connected to the new creature and had access to
laboratory practices that should have been reserved for the dominant race. In
conclusion, there is no Original Sin.
The concept was introduced by St. Augustine of Hippo, who, in order to
justify the criticism made to Pelagius of Brittany regarding the origin of Evil,
introduced the theory of Original Sin through Adam's transgression, since before
him we have no knowledge of a patristic author who affirmed the idea of
Original Sin.
Furthermore, if we really want to talk about guilt, we must, in any case, be
aware that its consequences cannot affect all of humanity, because Adam and
Eve are not their progenitors.
Sir, if Original Sin does not exist and did not stain Humanity in any way,
since Adam and Eve are not its progenitors, would it make sense for a God - at
this point I don't know which one, because the Bible does not speak of God - to
send his son to be massacred and killed, to rid Humanity of a stain that does not
exist? And so far we wonder: which, among so many Elohim, would have sent
him? Certainly not Yahweh, because we know that many have seen him
throughout the centuries, while Jesus says that no one has ever seen his "father"
(John 1:18). Christ does not remember this detail or is he referring to another
"father"?
Who is, then, the El on behalf of whom Maria was "visited" precisely by a
Gavri-El, a man in authority of El - and from whom she conceived without
having sexual relations with a man? The analysis of the story was developed in
the book There is no creation in the Bible.
Could it be the same El that Jesus invokes in the extreme moment, in the
cross, when he pronounces the famous phrase "Eli, Eli, lamá sabactâni" (Mt.
27:46) or "Eloí, Eloí, lamá sabactâni" (Mc. 15:34)?
 The studies of Prof. Garbini from La Sapienza University in Rome seem to
document how that exclamation has been skillfully manipulated by the Gospel
writers, who, by replacing an Aramaic term with a Hebrew one, have
transformed it into a manifestation of peaceful resignation that was, in truth, a
cry of anger, a roar against the injustice of what was happening to him.
Would that cry have been launched against an El who did not respect the
pact? If so, deception in the texts - or, if we prefer, the so-called "pious fraud",
often practiced by the priests of the Church - would be present from beginning
to end, that is, from non-creation to the last word spoken by Christ on the cross.
However, this is another story and, as I am occupied with the Old
Testament, I return to the topic. If there is no Original Sin, then it will be said
that Man is tainted by the sins he commits daily, violating the commandments
taught by God.
Still, we see that in the Bible, there is no mention of God. Rather, references
are made to a local colonizer/governor who dictated rules exclusively valid for
the people assigned to him and whom he had to take care of. In the biblical
words, there is nothing universal, on the contrary, we see that sometimes those
rules were not very clear, not even for those who received them directly.
The historical, social, and cultural relativism of the norms given by that
Elohim is so evident that Rabbi Benjamin Edidin Scolnic from Temple Beth
Shalom in Hamden, Connecticut, and Bible instructor at the Jewish Theological
Seminary in New York, writes that the interpretation and adaptation of that text
is an essential necessity for all generations. Furthermore, he affirms that when
errors and contradictions are found in the book, it is the duty of exegetes to
rectify and harmonize them.
It is observed, therefore, that even in the few passages analyzed there is a
huge amount of errors and contradictions, which is unacceptable when it is
claimed that this book is a product of direct divine inspiration and, consequently,
infallible precisely because it comes from God.
Anyway, Yahweh did not speak once and for all, but rather addressed the
people he conquered with weapons and territories that were not assigned to him
by their leaders. Everything that has been achieved in terms of spiritual truths is
the result of human elaboration, based on that book, constructing systems of
power, theological and ideological structures that act with essentially earthly
purposes.
I reaffirm that I know nothing about God or the spiritual worlds, so I have
the good sense not to talk about it, limiting myself to clearly stating that the
Bible also does not. What I obtain from translations is a narration that refers,
with evident realism, to individuals who came from another place - "from a
celestial dwelling without vegetation," confirms the cuneiform tablet NBC 11
108, mentioned previously - and who behaved like mere colonizers.
Certainly, the issue is thorny, so much so that academic theologians reflect
on the subject with the utmost attention. I do not write here what I deeply
analyzed in previous texts regarding the statements made by men of the Church
and eminent Jesuits regarding the so-called aliens.
However, I quote once again Armin Kreiner, professor of Theology at the
Catholic Faculty of the University of Munich in Bavaria, who points out some
points which he considers, rightly, inescapable for the Church in general and for
Christology in particular. The fundamental statements of this Catholic
theologian can be summarized as follows:
1. If it is said that we cannot talk about aliens because we do not know
them and have never seen them on a table, as an object of study, then we
must stop talking about God because we know nothing about him and
cannot study him.
2. The testimonies about Christ are no longer questionable or verifiable,
while the observations and alleged encounters with aliens can be subject to
examination.
3. The salvific action of Christ has been defined by theology as "unique
and universal," meaning that it occurred only once and applies to humanity
forever.
The professor writes that when this doctrine was elaborated, it was believed
that Earth was the center of the Universe and Man was the only intelligent
creature made in the image and likeness of God. But, if there are other beings,
the following questions arise:
Before intervening on Earth, did Christ ever go to other planets?
Did the inhabitants of other planets commit Original Sin?
If they did, did Christ go there to be killed?
If, in the future, Original Sin is committed on other planets, will Christ
sacrifice himself again in that world too?
In these circumstances, he states that the issue can no longer be avoided. The
ecclesiastical hierarchy and defenders of traditional, theological, ideological,
esoteric, and initiatic theses must open their minds to new challenges. The
dogmatic castle built and sustained over these 2000 years must be completely
revised.
 What we were told about the Bible is false.
As I always say in my conferences, I "pretend that" the biblical authors did
not invent fables, but rather they endeavored to write stories that happened in
ancient times. And so, after years of translating from the Masoretic Hebrew with
a free mind, I feel I can say that they seem to be sufficiently grounded and,
therefore, capable of supporting the following assertions:
It is not true that the Bible is a religious book;
It is not true that the Bible speaks of God - it tells us the story of the Elohim
and the events resulting from the covenant that one of them, Yahweh,
established with a people.
It is not true that the Bible speaks about creation, because from the first
verse it tells us the story of what "those individuals", the Elohim, did to
equip themselves in order to live on Earth.
It is not true that the Bible talks about the creation of Man, understood as a
specific act of divine omnipotence - it talks about genetic engineering
operations, Homo sapiens, Adam, Eve, and Noah.
it is not true that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of Humanity;
it is not true that Yahweh, the supposed God, participated in the "making" of
Adam;
It is not true that Adam and Eve have committed the so-called Original Sin..
It is not true that Yahweh, the supposed God, cared for humanity as a whole.
It is not true that the Bible speaks of angels as spiritual entities; on the
contrary, it describes cherubim as robots - to use the term employed by
Hebrew philology, which has always known this truth through the Talmud.
It is not true that the Bible speaks about Satan/Lucifer as the prince of
demons.
It is not true that the Bible describes miracles as supernatural acts.
It is not true that the Hebrews and their language existed as such in
Abraham's time - who may not have even existed - and most likely did not
exist even in Moses' time.
It is not true that Yahweh has promulgated a valid ethical code for
Humanity.
It is not true that Jesus Christ defined the biblical character known as
Yahweh as "his father."
These are not absolute truths, but observations that arise from reading the text. Those who
wish to truly understand the truth about God and the spiritual realms will have to seek elsewhere.
These are, together with others, the unacceptable contents that I have come
across during years of work and that I document in my books, as I have written
before. These are the same contents that the Hebrew Masoretic theologians
probably wanted or had to hide in order to prevent the risk of seeing their people
annihilated. This happened during the 6th to 9th centuries A.D., and in the
following centuries, various mystical currents tried to further cover those
unacceptable and risky truths with a thick layer of fog.
Given the historical moment in which they acted, I can understand them.
However, in the 21st century, cultural and social conditions have changed
profoundly, and those who "know" have a duty to start speaking up. I was
pleased to see that, perhaps in reaction to my previous books, some people
started to expose themselves, even on the most controversial topics. The path is
marked and we can only continue to follow it, studying and constantly carrying
out the necessary checks.
1. Unpublished in Portuguese. Edited in Italy by Uno Editori. - N. T.
2. It is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of
religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative
about events and personalities that are only suggested. - N. T.
3. The basis for an indigenous cargo cult (a movement to try to obtain industrial goods
through magic) that promised liberation in Melanesia. - N. T.
 Bibliography
AA.VV., Sefèr Toràh Nevijm u-Ketuvìm, The British and Foreign Bible
Society, London.
Bat Adam L., ESODO ovvero contrabbando di know-how from Piramidi to
Gerusalemme,
Robin Edizioni, Rome, 2010.
Benner J. A., The Ancient Hebrew Language and Alphabet,
Virtualbookworm, Publishing Inc., College Station (USA), 2004.
Benner J. A., Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, Virtualbookworm,
Publishing Inc., College Station (USA), 2005.
Blumenthal J., Liss J. L. (edited by), ETZ HAYIM, Jewish Publication
Society, New York, 2005. Brown F., Driver S., Briggs C., The Brown-Driver-
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon,
Hendrikson Publishers, Peabody Massachusetts (USA), 2005.
Caffiero M., Legami pericolosi, Einaudi, Turin, 2012.
Clark M. Rabbi, Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, Feldheim
Publishers, Jerusalem (Israel), 1999.
De Troyes R., Comment alla Genesi, Marietti 1820, Genoa, 1999.
Deiana G., Spreafico A., Guida allo studio dell’ebraico biblico, Urbaniana
University Press and Società Biblica Britannica & Forestiera, Rome, 1997.
Downing Barry, The Bible and Flying Saucers, J. P. Lippincott, Philadelphia
(USA),
1968; Berkley Pub Group (Mm), Reprint edition, 1998.
Downing B. H., La Bibbia e i dischi volanti, Ed. Cerchio della Luna, 2012.
Garbini G., Durand O., Introduzione alle lingue semitiche, Paideia Editrice,
Brescia, 1994. Garbini G., Note di lessicografia ebraica, Paideia Editrice,
Brescia, 1998.
Garbini G., Mito e storia nella Bibbia, Paideia Editrice, Brescia, 2003.
Gesenius W., Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures,
Boston,
1844.
Kreiner A., Gesù, gli UFO e gli alieni, Queriniana, Brescia, 2012.
Marrs J., Our hidden history, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2013.
Pettinato G. (edited by), La saga di Gilgamesh, Rusconi, Milan, 1992.
Pettinato G., Sumeri, Rusconi, Milan, 1994.
Pettinato G., La scrittura celeste, Mondadori, Milan, 1999. Pettinato G.,
Mitologia sumerica, UTET, Turin, 2001.
 Pettinato G., I re di Sumer I, Paideia, Brescia, 2003.
Pettinato G., Mitologia Assiro Babilonese, UTET, Turin, 2005.
Sabbah M. and R., I segreti dell'Esodo, Marco Troppa Editore, Milan, 2008.
Salibi K. S., The Bible came from Arabia, London (RU), 1985.Salibi K. S., The
Arabia Bible revisited, Cadmus Press & Cadmus Press Co. Ltd, Beirut
(Lebanon), 2008.
Sand S., L’invenzione del popolo ebraico, Rizzoli, Milan, 2010. Information
about the work
 Information about the book
Title:
The Bible is not a Sacred Book
The big deception
Original title:
La bibbia non è un libro sacro.
Il grande inganno
Author:
Mauro Biglino
Translation:
Jorge Almeida Bernardo
Revision:
Alice Araújo
Cover:
Gráfica 99 based on the original cover by Monica Farinella
Ebook graphic production:
Janas e-book
© Misty Forest 2016
All rights reserved for total or partial publication in the Portuguese language by

MISTY FOREST.