HIGH-TECHNOLOGY IN THE BIBLE
by Doug Yurchey
There are readers out there who would be surprised or offended with the notion that high-technology was described in the Bible. There are other readers who have realized that the only explanations to Biblical mysteries are ancient Close Encounters. A good question is: Why are certain, Old Testament events written about in the Bible? The answer could be that these were special events between basically two groups of people: One group was the primitives or the general state of humanity in Biblical times. The other group was the relatively few HUMANS that still retained and utilized technology originating from the days of Atlantis
The problem with trying to figure out what is going on in any text is largely caused by what the reader brings to the text in the form of preconceptions and expectations and this post provides an excellent example of how that often works. In the body of the main article there is a statement-as-fact that the Israelites followed two ufos. What actually is taking place there, is a simple assumption that the pillars of fire and cloud could not be real so must be extraterrestrial. If one bases assumptions from a context of the Exodus account being an historical event that has lost the technical detail, it comes out completely different . Egyptian armies traversed the desert in columns. These columns were headed by men carrying torches on surprisingly high poles. At night they could be seen from afar by the whole moving column. In the daytime a hood was placed over the flame to make it smoke and be visible to the people at the back. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the pillars of fire and cloud! Moses, as an Egyptian prince, would be well aware of this method of moving a large group through the featureless expanse of the desert and employed it himself! This can be adequately explained as a case of forgotten Bronze Age technology, rather than misidentified super technology.
Of course, this is just my take and I don't want to arrogantly poopoo another theory. I think it does go some way to illustrate how easy it is to "furnish" a piece of text with an alien explanation when there are arguably more likely (but boring!) ones from the time period in question.
Fundamentally all we have to go on is a piece of text and the people who initially passed it down orally and the people who committed it to text, understood the context because they used the stories all the time. We have to supply that context and this is where the divergences in perspective start. In a way it's all a bit rude: a Jew or Christian can point out that without any empirical evidence to conclusively swing towards one explanation, what it actually says in the text, that this is a miracle of deliverance from God, is just as valid an explanation as any other!
Theological standards of evidence are not the same as what is demanded of historical evidence. The religous will accept at face value what a specific holy text says without further investigation. Unless I miss my guess the Old Testament was not put in writing until the 6th or 7th century so a lot of mis-translation of the text could have occurred during that period.
Mmm. "The religous will accept at face value what a specific holy text says without further investigation." I suspect you really don't have a clue what goes on in the biblical studies department of a theology faculty because the exact opposite is in fact the case. The OT was probably initially written down from the C9th BC onwards. It's highly unlikely that the people writing it down mistranslated their own language. The redaction of text tends towards stylisation, in the case of exodus it would be the rescue of Israel and the institution of covenant on Sinai. All the facts are subservient to this key narrative. I was simply suggesting that in the case of the pillars of fire, Egyptian marching torches becoming the guiding hand of Yahweh is a wee bit more plausible (owing to the fact they both use fire and smoke and are narratively coherent) than space aliens.
A tag line of mr legendary times himself- Georgio! is that ancient people wrote down what they saw. It's not unreasonable to suggest that that is all they did. Maybe they didn't misidentify anything and everything afterwards is an uneccessary interpretation by arrogant us.
Its all good fun to discuss, none the less. Personally I think a description of a vision of angels actually being angels rather than aliens is preferable: let's face it- they've been mooching around in the background for so long they MUST be taking the piss!
There is no proof that either exist angels or aliens. But then agian as a human race we have to have something to believe in.
Amen! Strictly empirical atheists that I've come across tend to be rather dull people!