L.A. Marzulli

[Kim323]

I'd heard Mr. Marzulli on another podcast and for that reason looked forward to his guest appearance on the paracast. I personally was not offended. He has his opinions, which label he made clear they were. His use of the Book of Enoch (which I have read) is a legitimate source, though his conclusions on the nature of the UFO phenomenon don't necessarily follow. I found him very interesting and articulate. I notice that a very soon to be broadcast episode for the paracast is one featuring Budd Hopkins and another alien abduction researcher. The plug for that one clearly labels the phenomenon as hostile and evil, though I don't remember if those actual words were used. Mr. Marzulli was essentially saying the same thing in his use of the word malevolent. Anyway, a good episode, and I wish he'd been allowed to more fully develop it during the interview. Kim

 

[UBERDOINK]

I wish he'd been allowed to more fully develop it during the interview. Kim

I agree. It's good to hear more viewpoints.

 

[truthseeker]

Book of Enoch, I believe, was a part of the dead sea scrolls discovered in the caves in Qumran. What's interesting is that book of Enoch is not included in the bible and virtually all rabbinical sources are silent about it. However, the old testament does talk about the nephillim or the fallen ones as translated from Hebrew. I did a bit of research on this and there are various different rabbinical interpretations on who these nephillim were. Some state that they were men of great influence like kings who became wicked, thus the term fallen. I'd like to look into this more as I find this whole topic fascinating. There is probably a lot of Kabbalistic sources that deal with this topic but a lot of it is usually vague and requires a great deal of skill to interpret.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Mike Heiser has a much better explanation of the viewpoint than Marzulli.

if you care to listen, here is an example, he also has some video lectures youtube etc.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fuytJsh7PU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fuytJsh7PU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Xylo]

Personally, I don't think one can use ancient texts to produce any usable conclusions. For one thing, translations are very subjective. One word with many definitions can be translated with the incorrect definition and change the subject of the sentence/thought completely.

Imagine if you will the word "Worker" and the word "Slave." Both have similar meanings but different connotations. If one was to use the wrong connotation, it might change history completely.

Since translations cannot be exact when words hold close meanings, I submit that ancient documents cannot be used to create solid conclusions about the subjects/stories/myths that they contain.

Another example of a word with several connotations: the Greek word "arete."

(definition according to wikipedia)
Wikimedia Error

• Arete (Greek: ἀρετή; pronounced /ˈærəteɪ/ in English), in its basic sense, means "goodness", "excellence" or "virtue" of any kind. In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was ultimately bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function; the act of living up to one's full potential. Arete in ancient Greek culture was courage and strength in the face of adversity and it was what all people aspired to.
  "The root of the word is the same as "aristos', the word which shows superlative ability and superiority, and "aristos" was constantly used in the plural to denote the nobility." <sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> (See Aristocracy.) The Ancient Greeks applied the term to anything: for example, the excellence of a chimney, the excellence of a bull to be bred and the excellence of a man. The meaning of the word changes depending on what it describes, since everything has its own peculiar excellence; the arete of a man is different from the arete of a horse. This way of thinking comes first from Plato, in whose "Allegory of the Cave" it can be seen.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup>.

 

[UBERDOINK]

One word with many definitions can be translated with the incorrect definition and change the subject of the sentence/thought completely.

Imagine if you will the word "Worker" and the word "Slave." Both have similar meanings but different connotations. If one was to use the wrong connotation, it might change history completely.
[/LIST]

But isn't that why translation isn't done on a word by word basis but on a contextual whole basis?

For example, in English I may:

"be in a spelling bee"

or

"I may have been stung by a bee."

Now both those sentences are easy to differentiate, and I don't believe anyone could really confuse them, even though the words are spelled the same the context gives them clear meaning.

For your example to be correct, they would have to be translating only the words individually, without supporting sentences and paragraphs which create context for the words and thoughts to be clearly expressed.

That is, for example, how they knew how to explain the difference in the would "Arete" as they point out in the quote and I doubt, a translator that understood the language would be any more confused to it's meaning in the majority, if not all of texts you set before them.

 

[Xylo]

But isn't that why translation isn't done on a word by word basis but on a contextual whole basis?

There is a reason I originally used the words "slave" and "worker." In translation and in context they can mean almost the same thing but have a different connotation.

Imagine if you will that within the story of Moses, the Israelites were workers, not slaves. That changes the reasoning behind the exodus, doesn't it?

Or in these simple sentences:

"The craftsmen disagreed."

"The workers objected."

"The slaves rebelled."

Unfortunately human speech had not evolved to as many high concepts 5,000 years ago as it has today. And one word, or several words in a translation might have different meanings. More importantly, all translations make sense and all are plausible.

Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[UBERDOINK]

More importantly, all translations make sense and all are plausible.

Just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

Opinions are free for a reason

But learned opinions I do think hold more weight based on the amount of supporting evidence.

Again, your examples only work without the surrounding context, if for example we only had a few fragments of the Moses story, and in those fragments we just had bits and pieces of what happened, then a educated theory could be created, but it may be very much wrong.

Now take that same example but you have multiple documents, containing the majority, if not all of the story, and those documents come from multiple sources.

How can the translation then not be accurate?

It would be very hard, for example, to have three chapters of any book, say Tom Sawyer, and not easily still pick up the main points: he's run away from home, he's traveling with a slave named Jim etc. (very simplistic example)

You could argue that he didn't run away from home, he escaped from prison and is traveling with his brother named Jim... but you would really have to ignore ALL the surrounding narrative context, and the historic cultural understanding of the time the story is set for that to be even partially true.

 

[Xylo]

Opinions are free for a reason

But learned opinions I do think hold more weight based on the amount of supporting evidence.

Again, your examples only work without the surrounding context, if for example we only had a few fragments of the Moses story, and in those fragments we just had bits and pieces of what happened, then a educated theory could be created, but it may be very much wrong.

And that's precisely my point...it MAY be very much wrong. I am not saying that it IS wrong, but that there is a possibility that it is wrong; and due to that possibility we cannot draw concrete conclusions from the information.

Now take that same example but you have multiple documents, containing the majority, if not all of the story, and those documents come from multiple sources.

How can the translation then not be accurate? .

Because the translations were performed by the same group of people, with the same bias.

I understand your point, that context gives meaning. But remember that changing one sentence in a paragraph, or one word in a sentence can change the meaning of the whole for the better or for the worse. That is my point.

Using Tom Sawyer does not really fit into this discussion, because it was written in English in a relatively modern period. Perhaps you could use The Canterbury Tales because it was in Olde English and needs to be translated to be comprehensible.

It's not story fragments and piece-mealing a story together that I object to, it's translations of words with multiple yet similar meanings.

 

[methshin]

Look, I'm sorry if my opinions offend, but you cannot honestly expect to cite the Book of Enoch as a legitimate source for human history.

I'm having a hard time even starting a reply to this thread because my brain is screaming so many things to point out. So I'll leave it at this.

When you cannot cite authorship and the authors sources in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the literature is in fact correct, than you cannot cite this resource as something we should take seriously when investigating the paranormal field.

And don't start the whole "they were more in tune with their spirits" crap because I'm not gonna take that as relevant either.

 

[David Biedny]

Look, I'm sorry if my opinions offend, but you cannot honestly expect to cite the Book of Enoch as a legitimate source for human history.

I'm having a hard time even starting a reply to this thread because my brain is screaming so many things to point out. So I'll leave it at this.

When you cannot cite authorship and the authors sources in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the literature is in fact correct, than you cannot cite this resource as something we should take seriously when investigating the paranormal field.

And don't start the whole "they were more in tune with their spirits" crap because I'm not gonna take that as relevant either.

I'm in total agreement with you on these points, Methshin, thanks for writing those words.

dB

 

[methshin]

Well, I'd just hate for people 2,500 years from now finding a copy of Battlefield Earth in a cave and start citing that as factual.

 

[tyder001]

Well, I'd just hate for people 2,500 years from now finding a copy of Battlefield Earth in a cave and start citing that as factual.

Shhhh! Don't tell Tom Cruise. We don't want him coming on the Paracast and jumping up and down on the furniture.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Well, I'd just hate for people 2,500 years from now finding a copy of Battlefield Earth in a cave and start citing that as factual.

Meh, I don't think you can write off the entire texts like that though. There is a lot of stuff that is obviously not simple story telling such as the carefully documented lineages (many of which are corroborated in different texts) as well as certain archaeological finds that lend credibility to at least portions of the texts as most likely accounts of actual history.

 

[threed]

On the other hand, let's reverse this for a moment and consider the other extreme. What if God does exist, He did create life on Earth and the UFO abduction phenomenon really is Biblical?

But... God is not an omnipotent spiritual being. He is, instead, a misrepresentation of an "alien" entity or force. And all these abduction cases actually represent His continued tweaking of His "creation" (evolution).

Maybe they (God and His angelic "aliens") are the motive force behind human evolution. And if you could ever track back to the original "alien," that was God (so to speak).

We are their creative works. And they're still working on us. So, the key to the mystery of evolutionary change is not the unliklihood of positive mutations, but the genetic manipulation (over time) of abductees.

Or not.

 

[methshin]

That still doesn't change the fact that I'm going to need hard evidence that this stuff is legit. It may be nice to theorize about all this stuff and piece together different aspects that will make your story seem somewhat plausible, but at the end of the day, without proof, it might as well be a work of fiction.

We hold everything else that comes out to this standard, yet religion gets some free pass over the skeptical radar and somehow gets automatically viewed on an equal footing as scientifically proven material.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I actually think it's more plausible to suggest that at least portions of the bible are actual accounts of history and they like many of the other ancient texts indicate that the UFO phenomenon and "other beings" interacting with man has likely been going on for thousands of years. With an even more technologically limited civilization, these more advanced beings would likely be deemed supernatural.

 

[methshin]

I actually think it's more plausible to suggest that at least portions of the bible are actual accounts of history and they like many of the other ancient texts indicate that the UFO phenomenon and "other beings" interacting with man has likely been going on for thousands of years. With an even more technologically limited civilization, these more advanced beings would likely be deemed supernatural.

I understand where you're coming from, however, I have to play the role of skeptic here. We don't know who wrote this stuff and whether or not this fellow(s) is credible enough to be in charge or recounting past events, and like anything, when there is a distance between the actual event and you hearing about it (whether it is temporal or spatial), there is a lot of room for error. And let's be honest with ourselves here, the bible isn't exactly known for it's subtlety.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I understand where you're coming from, however, I have to play the role of skeptic here. We don't know who wrote this stuff and whether or not this fellow(s) is credible enough to be in charge or recounting past events, and like anything, when there is a distance between the actual event and you hearing about it (whether it is temporal or spatial), there is a lot of room for error. And let's be honest with ourselves here, the bible isn't exactly known for it's subtlety.

I too see where you are coming from, but considering the exactness of lineages (again, not only listed in several parts of the bible, but also match up with other texts) and various archaeological evidence (such as the above link - info also found on secular websites) it lends credibility to the texts as historical data. And the telephone game argument, while understandable, doesn't really discredit the stance as I am also inserting the idea that whether the texts are 100% accurate or not, one has to assume that if the witnesses in the texts are less technologically savy than us (not saying much - Ha ha!) that their accounts would need this taken into account as they would likely start attaching their own interpretation to the strange events they were witnessing. Of course, one could also argue that ancient man was likely much more savy than we give them credit for. Either way though, there is far too much evidence to immediately and completely dismiss the texts whether you believe in a god or not as there is enough evidence to show there appears to be some historical data in there.

 

[threed]

various archaeological evidence (such as the above link - info also found on secular websites) it lends credibility to the texts as historical data

Yes and no. If you can successfully read between the lines, you may get a nugget of historical insight. But you have to understand how these texts were written.

A case in point: The nation was under captivity in Babylon, displaced from their native region. They had since had time to develop their own communities and came into conflict with the dominant culture, hearing its myths and ideas about life.

There was an old, dilapidated structure -- so old that even the Babylonians themselves couldn't remember when it was built. In any case, it was a slum and an eyesore. The Babylonian ruler proposed to rebuild it.

The writers of the Tower of Babel used this as an opportunity to write a new tract. They used this opportunity to say, in effect, "Oh, here's the real story behind this ruined structure" and it shows our tribal diety as preeminent and it provides a chance to jab at the Babylonians...

It brings together old campfire stories that retain shadowy rememberances of their migration down from the Black Sea region in prehistoric times, the flood that happened there, and the early tribal differences of opinion about the nature of urban vs. pastoral lifestyles...

There are nuggets of historical truth in there. But they're about as much as you might expect from a Stephen King novel.