Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

The politics aren't the issue here. I was talking about something else.

This is an question about the entities known as "The Jinn".
They have perhaps been called by many names; genies, angels, demons, aliens, gods, etc, etc, etc...

------Edit------

For the purpose of this post I'd have to say some of theses are "destroyers". Are all destroying angels "bad"? Probably not.
Some are perhaps only doing a work assigned to them.
The two that took out the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah walked up to Abraham with God.
But do all "destroyers" fall under this same catagory? I don't know.

So the world then as now was facing a judgment from God.
The more I think about exactly who these were, the less I realize I know.
I'm having to edit out most of what I said earlier.

------Edit------

As Einstein said; "I don't know what WWIII will be like, but I can tell you how WWIV will be fought"...
"With sticks and stones"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, no.
It's a specious link to a supposed root cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you ever see the X-files episode about the Genie?
It's a good one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

X-Files lost any credibility it might have had (even as fiction "based on actual cases") during the pilot episode.
I never bothered to watch it.
It was rubbish posing as "reality", pandering to the lowest common denominator. Much like the rest of TV programming.

 

I just bring it up because the episode did make one good point that is relevant to the issue here.
The Genie said; "Giving them three wishes is like giving a revolver to a chimpanzee". And it always was.
That... is the point here.

Did you ever wonder were the term "Sir" came from?
It's said someplace that it once stood for "Great Serpent".

From Monstropedia - "The largest encyclopedia about monsters".

"This word, 'Sir', also apparently meant 'Great Serpent', and is related to the Sanskrit word 'Sarpa',
which was also used to describe great "dragon-gods" who ruled over, and created, the original Dravidian culture."

A "dragon" is defined as a "large serpent". This kind of serpent was not a reptile, and therefore these "Dragon-gods" were not a reptilian/human hybrid.
The serpent was a man of giant stature and a host for extra-dimensional theophanic entities.
This was the species of ancient man that mixed with the newer Adamic race to form humanity as it exists today.

It wasn't some kind of "reptilian" UFO creature that web sites like "Crystalinks" and all the others like it would have you believe either.
Every one of those sites quote the same definition from the same source and link it to a "reptilian" explanation.
That's a good sign right there it isn't the truth, because they haven't done the research themselves. I have. (I'll explain it better in my next post).

Think of the Aztecs and the "feathered serpent god" they waited on to return.
They were looking for a light-skinned man with a beard, when Native Americans like the Aztecs don't have facial hair and they had never seen a white man before Cortes and his armies arrived.
Cortes just played into the ancient legend, but...it still revealed something about these ancient dragon-gods.
They were human.

Not hard to see how they were worshiped as gods. Technically they were, but these were theophanic entities (angelic) using humans as hosts.
The ancient Israelites were commanded not to worship the "hosts of heaven", or the gods of the neighboring nations in whatever form they manifested or were symbolized by.

 

I didn't even notice that: it was the crap physics.

Yet you were the one that brought Oppy's dismissal into it...

And your etymology is as bad as the rest of it.
"Sir" is a contraction of "sire", and "sire" is a contraction of seior/ senior: one who is older (and incidentally also relates to (my) father). (And can be seen in the French "sieur"/ "monsieur").

Oops, wrong.

Edit:

It's all nonsense: jinns AND reptilian humanoids.

I take it you mean theophoric rather than "theophonic". Regardless, that's a specious as "extra-dimensional".

 

That still poses no contradiction in terms. So...Yes, the term "my father" fits quite nicely.
Also "sire" speaks of the person "whom one is begotten by" or sired.
Did the word "Sir" once imply the title of "Great Serpent"?
I don't know that for sure, but I do know this much is true...

The serpent "host" that Satan used to beguile Eve was the "man" that fathered Cain, not Adam. It was not a reptile.
This created the two races (Adamic and Cainite) that mixed again as mentioned in Gen. 6, but in the opposite way of what is commonly taught.

Most theologians all the way back to Josephus teach the daughters of men were Adamic and the sons of God that took them as wives were fallen angels who "pressed into" or created for themselves male bodies. It may seem to be a fine line, but the opposite is actually the truth.

The sons of God were of the Adamic linage through Seth, who disobeyed God in marrying the Cainite daughters of the linage of serpent "hosts".
Because the serpent was a man, these Cainite women were called the daughters of men. Adam was of God. His offspring were the sons of God.

These were the "souls in prison that repented not in the days of the preaching of Noah", that Jesus preached to when He was dead.
It was by this that they polluted the pure bloodline of God passed down from Adam through Seth.
That is what corrupted the way of all flesh on the earth, and brought about the destruction.
Two different groups with different origins combined to make the human race as it is today.

When Satan tempted Jesus he showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Then he said; "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine." Jesus didn't deny the world was Satan's to offer at that time.

The kingdoms of this world have belonged to the serpent's linage since the time they were "delivered unto" him.
By His statement "to whomsoever I will I give it" we can deduct He has had the right to chose who would be it's ruling classes.

Now to answer the question; "Is it true that the term "Sir" was once associated with "Great Serpent"?
After reading this I'll let you be the judge, but I'd say there was a real good possibility.

 

So, who do you know whose father is a dragon?

Nope.

Why would I want to re-read that nonsense?

I'd rather like to think that most people aren't that gullible.

 

No, I did not mean theoporic.
I meant theophonic, as in theophany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany

 

My apologies: you actually meant theophanic.
I did try "theophonic" and all I got was a number of sites talking about a CD of some sort, hence I concluded you meant "theophoric" (at Google's suggestion).
I can't be held responsible for misinterpreting your spelling errors.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, that's the thing I'm trying to say...the entire human race today is a carefully balanced mixture.

You're thinking of a dragon as a large mythological four legged beast.
The definition I mentioned earlier explains it better.

 

Nope:

Yes, I'm aware of the etymology.

Nope.

Er, no and no.
No destroyers whispering in ears, no "last time round".

 

"Those who can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

 

You're assuming that what you're telling us is history, rather than fantasy.

 

Is it true then, that the term "Sir" was once associated with "Great Serpent?

The serpent was not a snake in a tree trying to give Eve an apple. That is a lie promoted to hide the truth. It was not a "reptilian" either.
It was a man Satan used for a host that seduced her and fathered Cain. A man through whose offspring he has ruled the world ever since.
Far-fetched? Unbelievable?

It's recorded in the bible Satan said of the kingdoms of this world;
"All this power... and the glory of them....is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it".
If that much is true alone we can deduct He has had the right to choose it's ruling classes throughout history.

Now to answer the question, let's look at some definitions.
In the origin of our words there may be some clues to be found.

Wikipedia lists "Sir" as meaning...mylord, lord, elder, title of honor, a knight, a variant of sire, male sovereign, father, male parent.

With regard to British knighthood, a person who is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm is not allowed to use the title "Sir".

"Sir" is also used instead of the rank specific address for a senior officer in a military, police or other hierarchical organisations.

Until the 17th century it was also a title of priests...the related word monsignor, from French "monseigneur ".

Wikipedia also lists as a variant of "Sire"...reigning kings, a superior, person of importance, position of authority, nobility.
Over time the final "e" spelling has been discarded.

Quite a telling list...kings, priests, lords. sovereigns, nobles, superiors...
All the ruling classes.

 

Er, quite easily explained:

I.e. those to whom (for various reasons) respect or deference is due.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And, AFAIK, it's also used quite a bit by (at least) US ex-servicemen to civilians too, as a mark of respect.

No.

Nope: it's not rank specific: it's used by anyone addressing anyone else who happens to have a superior rank: it's rank relative.
And only applicable to commissioned officers, not used by a private to a corporal or sergeant, for example. And if used in such cases will usually get the reply "You don't call me sir, I know who my father is".

 

Like I said; "All the ruling classes".

 

Considering that it's a title/ form of address to indicate a superior position that's somewhat like complaining the word "teacher" (also called "sir", BTW) is somehow sinister because it's only used for those who give instruction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's strange how the word "English" is only used to indicate people (or things) from England. Highly telling. I think we've possibly stumbled on the roots of a conspiracy here...

 

I'm glad you finally agree.

 

Ah, sarcasm goes over your head, I see.