The Future Human With Mauro Biglino And Alex Gómez-Marín - 2023-08-25

Welcome, everybody. Welcome to this edition of the Future Human, where we will be in conversation with Alex Gomez Morin, the director of the Pari center, and Mauro Belino. Mauro is an italian biblical scholar, translator, popularizer and best selling author for Mondadori, one of the major publishing houses here in Italy. During his career, he has directed and supervised the translation and publication of 17 books of the Old Testament for Edictioni, Sao Paulo, Italy's main catholic publisher. Mauro's books take the reader by hand and accompany them through a fascinating narration of biblical verses which are analyzed in their original form in ancient Hebrew.

And he will be in conversation with Alex, who is a spanish physicist or neuroscientist. Since 2016, he has been the head of the behavior of organisms laboratory in Alicante, where he is an associate professor for the Spanish Research Council. And he is, of course, also director here at the Pari center. So today Alex and Mauro will be in conversation around the literal translation of the Bible and the oldest secret in history. There will be about an hour dialogue between Alex and Mauro, and then we will open it up to the audience for questions and comments.

And with that, I will hand it over to you. Alex, welcome. Thank you, Eleanor, as always. Thank you, everybody, for coming. And special thanks to Mauro for accepting this live conversation in English.

So to just jump directly to the topic, two months ago, a friend of mine unexpectedly gifted me this book, a topic I would not particularly seek for. And I read it in two days and I had really, and this is not just metaphor, an ontological shock. An ontological shock, yes. Because if Mauro, what you're translating as literally as you can without interpretation, as you said, respecting. I like that.

Respecting the Bible. If that is true, let's say accurate or more accurate than other translations, interpretations, then many things are upside down. Many. And let's start perhaps with the most important word, which is the word Elohim, which is usually translated as God. But if Elohim is not God, then the Bible is another thing.

So let's start with that, right? It's a big summary of my idea. Sure. So there are many words in this book, hebrew words, right? Elohim, yahweh, Olam, kabod, ruach and so on, and many topics like the Garden of Eden, the burning bush, sacrifices to the gods, the chosen people.

But let's begin and let's see how far we can go with the problem with this word Elohim, whether it means God or God or something else. And what you discovered translating when you were asked to translate as literally as you could, without putting any, if possible, an interpretation, what you discovered when you were translating the sacred text. Oh, yes. First of all, I want to apologize with your audience for my English, which is very basic. So I hope to be able to make me understood by your audience.

But first of all, let me start with an argument. I want to say that my method, my approach to the Bible, is to pretend that the Bible literally tells us what in the Bible is written without introduce allegories, metaphor and so on. And I noticed that if we read the Bible literally, without allegories and so on, the Bible has a lot of sense. If we read the Bible with the theological lenses, the Bible, the entire Bible, does not make sense.

And this is why I prefer to read literally the Bible and to pretend that the Bible is really what is written in it. Do you understand? Yes. Is it clear? Yes.

It's important to know my method, my approach, in order to understand what I say in this conversation. In effect, the term eloim is the most important, because Eloim is a plural term in Hebrew language, but it is always translated as God, singular. But this is clearly a mean translation, is clearly a mistake. It's a theological mistake, because the theologians need to say that in the Bible there is God. But it's important to say that the Bible doesn't speak about God.

I want to be clear. I don't speak about God. I don't want to say that God does not exist. God is not my concern. I only read the Bible and tell to the public what the Bible really says.

This is important to know. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a dogmatic. I want to have an open mind, and I recommend to read the Bible with an open mind. And also, if the Bible does not speak about God, that doesn't mean that God does not exist. I want always to clear this fact, because it's important we talk about a book, not about a religion.

The religion is a construction on this book. This book was not written in order to create a religion, but only to narrate the relationship between the hero of the book, I. E. Yahweh, and his tribes, the tribes of Jacobs. Not all the Hebrews.

That is important to know, but only about the tribes of Jacobs. The other Hebrews were enemies, were considered enemies always. This is important. Now, if you have a question. Yes, many.

But I want to let you unfold it slowly. Let me just mention towards the end, I want to ask you about the nevertheless big consequences of your translation of the Bible, regardless of whether you're saying something or not about religion. But if you unmount this book, at least three main religions crumble. Right? And that's something to bear in mind.

And it's fair to say that's not your intent, but that's a consequence of your work. Yes, that wasn't my intent. Yes, but is a consequence of method to approach to the Bible.

It has consequences for the religion, us, but not about the fate of the singular person, individual. Because if God exists, God exists, exists. And the fate can refer to it, refers to it. I want to see that. That God, the God of the religions, is not into the Bible.

So you say the consequences.

After translating 17 books for Sao Paulo Editioni, when I started to speak in public, to narrate in public my findings, they immediately show me the way to the way out. They immediately fired me. And so since 2010, I continued by myself to translate and to write and publish books. I published 16 essays on these topics, because these topics is very interesting for many causes. Of course, one of these is the problem that these translations create to the religions.

Yes. And to get this out of the way, something very interesting. And this is starting to be a common pattern amongst the people I talk to here. When you go and check Mauro's Wikipedia, which is something you shouldn't do, you rather buy the book and read what the author has to say? We find the usual words, conspiracy theory and pseudoscientific speculation, right?

Which to me means very little and even less coming from Wikipedia. But of course, what you're doing is unpopular, I suppose, on many sides, and I don't want to dwell a lot on it. I just want to make it explicit and then continue with this translation of the word Elohim. So you said. It's clearly a mistake.

So theologians perhaps disagree because they do their interpretation. But what about translators? What about philologists? Do they agree? Is it clear, is it unequivocal that the proper translation, or maybe you should explain that first.

The point here is that it's found in plural. We haven't spoken about the singular versus plural. And then let us know if there's controversy, not amongst theologians, but amongst other translators. Oh, yes, I read that. But I want to say a thing.

My books are studied in theologians University. I know that for sure, because it's necessary to know that no one in the world knows exactly what eloim means. No one in the world, no scholar. Eloim is translated in many ways because no one knows the real meaning of the term Elohim. So in my books and in my videos, in my channel, maurobelian official channel, I always recommend not to translate this word.

It's better to leave it as it is. It's better to leave it in Hebrew. But what is fundamental is read carefully. The context in which this term is put is used because the context allows us to understand what the Bible says and what the eloim means. And the context tells us clearly that Elohim were many individuals in flesh and blood.

So is absolutely clear. The Bible tells us also the name of several of this Elohim. And the hero of the protagonist of the Bible, Yahweh, was just one of the eloim, one of multiple eloim, just like the other. And Yahweh needed to fight against the order in order to conquer lands, to rule over.

Now, how come other translators didn't come across that? Or perhaps they did. It's just that you're putting it today on another context to another lens. Maybe you're offering a more complete picture, because as I said at the beginning, having read your book, it's not just about Elohim, it's about many other things. But how come they didn't pick up this fact?

Because you said what's clearly a mistake, and I asked you how clear that is. But also the word mistake is interesting. Is it simply a mistake? Is it deliberate? It surprises me that.

Well, that I didn't know that, and that new translations of the Bible are not done with this more literal translation. Why didn't I know about this until this friend gave me the book? But I think it derives from the fact that the religion and the theologians uses the Greek Bible and the Latin Bible, in which Elohim is translated in Greek as theos, in Latin as theos.

I have a classical background, so in my high study I studied ancient Greek and Latin. And this fact was verified by the catholic publishing house before to give me the task to translate, because without knowing Greek and Latin, it's too hard or impossible to translate correctly the Bible. So in my translation I point out these three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. And this is fundamental in order to understand this fact. Yes, but I know that if Elohim is, is a plural term for the theologians, is very difficult, is very hard to explain to the people the meaning of the religion.

And so they necessarily have to say, to try to demonstrate that Eloim is singular. But in this book, in one of the chapters devoted to the Loim, I demonstrate that in the Bible there are at least 23 lom, 23 loim. And so is clear in the Bible, they are named, they are fighting each other.

They were ruling over diversity, various nations. And Yahweh had one of these nations. Yahweh had the people of Jacobs, which was assigned to him by the chief of the eloim. That in the Bible is named Elion. Yes, and I understand better now that the whole discussion doesn't hinge only on singular versus plural, because I've tried to find the counterarguments to your translation.

And some people say, well, you can use the plural, but it means singular. Or as you already mentioned, well, you read it allegorically. I've also asked some of my friends who can read Hebrew, how do you read the Bible if you do? And they say, well, we don't pay so much attention to the words. It's more about the vibration.

And I respect all of that. I think this is all fine, but what you're saying here is not only that it appears as plural many times, so it's not God, but gods, but that these gods are very peculiar creatures that do all sorts of things that don't look like godlike stuff. And as you go on through the book, and maybe you can pick which ones you want to emphasize, otherwise I can do it. It feels really unbelievable. That's why I mentioned this ontological shock.

The chosen people are not. The chosen people are those ruled by a particular eloim, Yahweh and the gods, like sacrifices of stuff that's burned for some very weird reasons. And here there's a bit of speculation. Adam is not made. It's engineered the Garden of Eden.

I mean, I'm doing all these spoilers now. I hope you don't mind of your book, but the Garden of Eden was a lap. It's like, come on, what is going on here? Right? What is going on?

But perhaps is going on the truth? The truth that I think the hierarchy of the church knows very well. Absolutely. Because in the history of the translator, I'm not the only translator that understood this topic. Because you read my book, I introduced many proofs of the fact that Loem is plural.

And in effect, loom is used with the verb at the singular and in the plural form. And in this Book, I also demonstrate that if Eloim is singular, the Bible doesn't make sense. Absolutely, the Bible has sense. If we consider that Eloim were many individuals. And in effect, the topic of Elohim is the most important in the book ideal, you know, with many other topics as Satan, angels, Ruach, Elijah, the cherubs, the so called cherubim in Hebrew, and so on.

But the most important is Eloim. Because as you said before, if Eloim means God, the Bible is a thing. If Eloim doesn't mean God, the Bible is entirely another thing, is an historical Bible that narrates us a small part of a bigger history, which is narrated all around the world. The Bible is only one of the books that humanity wrote. In the Books of Asia, of America, we find the same concepts.

We find the same concepts also in the greek books, in the latin books, in the Latin so called mythology and so on. In two of my books written for Mondadori, I compared the Bible with the Omeros books and Omeric books. And it's clear that they narrate the same history. They speak as about the same individuals. That in Hebrew are Eloim, in sumerian and Assyrian are Anunna or Anunati.

In Greek is Theoi. But they are the same individuals now have the same needed characteristics. Who are they? They're not gods, but they're not humans. And so here we are again.

Here's again a theoretical physicist turned neuroscientist asking a hebrew translator about what extraterrestrials, other species. And I know this is now speculation, that's not literally reading from the Bible, but you triangulate from many aspects of the lives of these hello hymns as to what they were. So what do you think they were? It's a very interesting argument, but the Bible doesn't tell us where they came from. Reading carefully the Bible, we can understand that they were not humans.

They make the humankind. They made the humankind. And they intervene with a surgery intervention. And this is said also by many rabbis who say that the Bible knows. Since 4000 years ago, the Bible knows the clonation.

It's enough to read the method with which were format not created Adam and Eve. And that, I repeat, is written by many rabbis. Who knows the truth. You know how if that enrages, that upsets more than upsets theologians. You can imagine how much this should upset scientists, especially biologists, right?

If now you're suggesting or even saying that the human race is not created by God, they'll be happy about that. But you're saying it's not just a product of evolution, natural evolution, but it's engineered by some sort of creatures more advanced than us. That's why immediately the hammer of conspiracy theory falls upon us. So what else can we say from the text and also from other lines of evidence about such a big claim here. We have another big headline.

Right? Right. I think there have been another kind of intervention between the evolution and the creation, an intelligent intervention on the homo sapiens or homo erectus in order to produce another species able to understand and execute orders. And so is clear in many books all around the world. All these books, I think to the hindu books tells us more clearly than the Bible.

And in India this is not a problem. It's not a problem.

The number of the eloim, which in that land are called deva, absolutely is not a problem because they don't have a monotheistic religion. On the contrary, we have a monotheistic religion which can't accept this fact. But in the Bible is absolutely clear. I have no doubt. Obviously, I pretend, as I said, that the Bible tells or told us the truth.

I'm not sure of that, of course, because it's an ancient book and with the ancient book it's necessary to be very careful when you read it. But given the fact the theologians tells us that this book is the book of God, I suggest to read this book carefully with open mind, just like we read other books, just like we can read Mahabharata, Bhagavad, Gita, Veda and so on, with the same open mind, and we can understand that they tell us the same mystery. The same mystery. Now when you say truth, I guess you don't mean revelation. You mean that what was written is what they were trying to mean, right.

That's what you mean by truth, right? Because some people may think you're saying that the Bible is the truth, but you're saying the truth in the sense that what these people bother to write so painfully, I suppose it's what they were seeing or what they were being told by their people, right? Not the trust in absolute, but the trust in this book. Yes. Now more things here.

When you were mentioning other traditions and you're mentioning polytheism, probably. And that's again, I express my ignorance in all these matters when in India, for instance, I suppose they don't have a problem with the devas or these many gods. Perhaps they don't. But do they have a problem in taking them not seriously but literally? Do they take them literally as you're doing of these elohims?

But I think that is not possible to talk about politicism because these individuals were not considered as gods, but individuals, dangerous individuals to those was necessary worship because of their knowledge, because of their technology and so on. But they weren't spiritual God, the Bible, but not only in the Bible, I would say, in all of the semitic thought, there aren't concepts, there aren't transcendental concepts like spirituality, omnipotence, omniscience, and so on. And also in the Bible, for example, there is a term, el Shaddai is a term used by one of these, eloim.

And he used this term to present, to introduce himself to Abraham and said, I am el Shaddai. This term, shaddai is always translated as omnipotent, but it doesn't mean omnipotent. El Shaddai, the same scholars write that means God, the lord of the mountain, or at least the lord of the desert. There is no omnipotence in the Bible, never. And actually, I had heard this from the theologians in the US.

Specifically, I think it was David Griffin who passed away last year, that the almighty, the word almighty was a big mistake. He was also trying, from his point of view, which is a very different one than yours, from process philosophy, to correct and to try to think of a theology that can work without omnipotence and omniscience within a process philosophical point of view. So it's fascinating to see this also coming from another totally different approach. I would say it's interesting to read in the Bible that when Yahweh wants to conquer a land, he needs to fight. So it's clear he is not omnipotent, but it has the same powerful of the others, Elohim.

And this, for example, is clearly written in the Bible of the judges, where is written that Yahweh is as Kamosh, the so called God of the Moabite, and is written that it has the same power, but is not necessary to have a particular translation. Is the normal translation by theologians either this part of the Bible? Yes, because it's too hard to explain, but it's clear it's under our eyes in the Bible that we have at home. Yes, not in my translations. Not in my translations.

Yes, I was thinking of your translations, or at least the bits that you articulate in your book for us who don't know, to be able to follow with the hebrew text. And then underneath the translation, your commentary over and over, covering so many aspects. I was thinking of it as a scientific hypothesis, and I don't know if it can be falsified or how one would falsify it, but in the sense of, well, here we have all these pieces of data, this evidence, and here's an overarching explanation that tries to best explain what's going on. And there again, not knowing a word of Hebrew, except the ones I've learned from you, these main ones, I would agree that, again, if the garden was not the garden you speak of, also about the tree. The trees, that's very interesting.

Everything is so interesting. These two trees, there seems to be only one, the burning bush. Maybe there's another way of translating what that thing was, how these Elohims behaved. They seem to behave as greedy, as angry. So that doesn't feel very spiritual at all.

Well, all of these disconnected. They are not disconnected facts, but all these parts of the history of the story put together under the overarching hypothesis, well, at least it should be entertained. And that's also a premise of all these conversations I have with people, is that, well, what happens if we entertain this? Where does it bring us and how likely it is that it is the case? If I understood your question, I want to say that if put together all the topics, about all the topics you said, you quoted, the Bible is clear.

It's not necessary to introduce any other concept. For example, the bash burning. The term in Hebrew, seme, means mountain crest. I don't know how to say in English. Yeah, top of a mountain.

Yes, please help us. Yes, that's correct. Crest, top of a mountain. Thank you. And so Moses didn't see a bash burning, but the rocks on which perhaps there was some substance that was burning without burn the rocks, just like if we put gasoline on the rock, we see the gasoline burning, but the rock doesn't burn.

I see. And does make sense. And in the other part of the Bible, the term sene is the name of a mountain. It's called sene. So it's not necessary to make particular translation.

It's necessary read the entire context, because often the meaning comes out reading various books. For example, if you mix the Book of Genesis with some chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, you clear understand the meaning of the term ruach, which I devoted a chapter to the ruach in this book, because ruak is always translated as spirit of God. Now, in many situations, it doesn't mean spirit is a real concrete thing because it's necessary to say that the Hebrew is a polysamic language. And so it's only the context that allows us to understand which is the real meaning in that verse. Because in some verses, ruach can be the spirit of God, but in other verses, clearly it can't be the spirit of God.

It must be necessary. Another thing, because Elijah, get on this ruach. Ezekiel, get on this ruach. This ruach, rise from the ground, this ruak comes from the north. So it's impossible that in that cases ruak means spirit of God because if that were true, we must have the spirit that is in the north, but it isn't in the south, in the east or in the west.

And that is ridiculous, of course. Now, when I was arriving at this chapter, I think it was towards the end of the book about Ruach. And that must happen now, should be happening now to many of the audience listening and maybe those who will listen. No, Mauro is talking about. No, really, please.

Are you talking about a UFO? A uap? Oh my God, here we go. Even more controversial and given what's going on in the US right now with the hearings and so on, and given the bad press of ufology and so on, well, Maro, you seem to be indicating thou was unidentified area of phenomena.

I would say a thing in the Bible, those are not unidentified aerial phenomena because are clearly identified phenomena. There is no doubt the hours of today are unidentified Irel phenomena or UAP. But those in the Bible are clearly identified, are described. It's enough to read the book of Ezekiel, but it's necessary to read it with open mind, as I said before, without the theologian's lenses. And it's clear that ruach is a flying machine, but clearly identified, clearly described.

Today we see the lights in the sky and so we unidentified these lights. Ezekiel saw this ruach very, very close.

He got on this ruach, Elijah got on this ruach. So it's absolutely clear in Ezekiel. I recommend if you don't want to read all the book of Ezekiel, I recommend to read chapter one, chapter three, chapter eight, chapter ten, chapter eleven. And is written then when the cupboard or the ruak of Yahweh when rises from the ground, produces a loud noise and Ezekiel in that case cannot see the kabod because it's behind him. But he hear clearly the loud noise produced by the cabood of Yahweh when rising from the ground.

So it's clear. And they are not my translations. My translations are others. You see, in the book I always indicate the verses in Hebrew and the literal translation so everyone can verify what I am saying. Everyone can verify as a joke, but that's serious.

I don't know what people would like to believe now that there's this third ingredient in the menu because those who hated the idea of God the creator may be really scared about. Well, if the alternative is these flying things, well, I'd rather now I prefer the old story told, but leaving that aside and related to this question of the ruach, where are the Elohims today? If they were here, whatever they were, where are they today? I don't know. I don't know because my concern is the Bible.

I don't want to make strange od hypotheses, because all hypotheses are possible. I am open to all hypotheses, but I don't tell the truth. I don't know. Where are they? There is church pastor in the USA which describes that the eloim are here and are the real governors of the earth.

But I don't know. So I prefer to not answer, or better I answer I don't know. It's not a problem. I don't know, because in the Bible it's not written. Okay, let me ask you differently then, and that's very fair, Mauro.

If those people, saw them, interacted with them, you even described that they may have had relationships with women and so on. Well, if that was this usual exchange communication, why don't we see them now? Where are they? Not where are they, but no, I just ask you that not where are they. Why don't we see them as these people, these ancient humans used to, because perhaps they were or they are just like humankind.

So that is written in one letter of St. Paul, in which is written that if you encounter an unknown individual and he asks you something, perhaps to come to your home, it's better to receive him, because he could be one of them. It's clearly written in Greek, so is in indian taste, because in Genesis six is written that they mix it with daughter of the Adamites. So if they could to mix with daughter of the Adamites, it could mean that they were or they are very similar to us.

If it's truth, it's impossible to recognize them. Let me move to another one, because so far we've been talking only about the Old Testament. I know we could talk an hour about what I'm going to ask you now. But what about Jesus? What about the New Testament?

Who was Jesus? And, well, it's not a problem to offer possibilities, because we've been told a fiction, we've been told a regular man, we've been told a man who also was a God, and we've been told even that he was a mushroom. I've also come across that hypothesis. Serious one. A serious one, actually.

So who was Jesus in your expert? From your point of view, this is a topic very, very sensitive. It's hard to try to explain in a few words I know. And by the way, we could say maro, let me just say, if somebody doesn't want to hear it, they can just leave now, no problem. It's sensitive.

We want to hear what you have to say. To the degree that this is complex and I understand, yeah, I can tell two words about this topic. The gospels are the persecution of the Old Testament.

And in the gospels, the authors talk about Gabriel. Gabriel is not an angel. Gabriel is not a spiritual entity. According to Jesuit, that is cardinal in France. In France, Gabriel was, in Hebrew, an ish, I-E-A man.

In book of Daniel is clearly written that Gabriel was an ish. And Gabriel encounter Maria, and Maria becomes pregnant.

So Jesus could be. I prefer, I want the could be, because I haven't the truth. Could be the son of one of them, the one who was propheticized before by Isaiah and so on. And he could be a product of this interbreeding between one of the loom. Because Gabriel in Hebrew means power of an l.

L is a singular term of eloim.

So Gabriel is a power of an l, is not a name of a person, is a function, is a function present in the Old Testament, and it is also present in the New Testament. So we must know that. And if Jesus is a son of Gabriel and Mary, Jesus could be one of them now. And this allows me to ask you something that to me is very important that I don't understand of the whole story so far laid out. And maybe Jesus can help all these elohims that they sound like more advanced than us in the sense that they can do things that these humans couldn't.

And they have this ruach and they do these things with us, supposedly, but they all seem very kind of petty, know, like angry and greedy. They never sound, at least from what I've read from you, they never sound like elevate. And I don't want to say they're spiritual, but they don't sound like elevated beings, but Jesus sounds like that. So are there elohims or descendants of elohims? And we are in the speculation mode totally now, who feel like, sound like spiritual beings, like more evolved beings.

Yes. This is why before I said that this is an Od argument, because it needs many time to explain, because Jesus is clearly different from Yahweh. Yahweh that is presented us, introduced us as father of Jesus, as godfather, is another kind of individual, as said, as written in Bible is called ish milkrama, I. E. Men of war.

So they didn't concern with religion with spiritually, with transcendence, with omnipotence, with omniscience, and so on. On the contrary, Jesus tells us a new message, a message which is completely different from the message from the tales narrated in the Old Testament. But without the Old Testament, Jesus could not be exist.

Okay, we're running out of time. I'll talk to you for so long. Let me just go for two more easy questions. Mauro. So one is practical.

Remind us the percentage of the corpus you have translated. How much more is left? Will you do it? Can you do it? Who can do it?

Because when my friend gave me this book, my friend is called Alex, like me. I said, well, is there a big linear Bible? Is there a Bible? Complete translation. And I know the Bible are many books.

And in some cases, some books are included, others are not. But what's the bar? The percentage of what you have translated or others that do it like you? And what else is needed? Maybe philanthropies?

Money? Or are these books available? My big question is, can we expect to have a complete new literal translation of the old? And why not? On the New Testament, I translated for me, only for me, almost 25.

The New Testament, new fives, 25 times the entire Old Testament and New Testament. In regard to Old Testament, I translated 21 books. And if you consider that the Old Testament of the Hebrews contains less than 30 books, the percentage is very high, you know. But I have in mind to translate the entire Bible and to publicate, to publish my translation.

I'm not a mad fool.

It's a thing that fascinated me. Yes, all right. And there's no problem in accessing those texts. I mean, that maybe goes back to the question where we started, because ironically, you were asked, maybe that's not accurate enough, not by the Vatican, but as I understand, by the publishing house of the Vatican, to translate those books specifically, to do it literally. And then they didn't like that translation.

Maybe that's inaccurate, too. Now, do you need their intervention? What's your relationship with the Vatican, if any? About that. I was very appreciated as translator.

In effect, they published 17 books translated by me with my name. 17. These books are in the faculty in the university of Theologians, are studied. Of course, these books are dangerous for them. But they want to know what I said, what I wrote, and I don't remember the question.

Well, your relationship with the Vatican, do you need their text? Are you in good shape with them? Some people inside. I mean, maybe that's secret, but they write to you and they say, well, good work. We already knew that.

But this is not what we want people to hear, et cetera. Today I don't have a public relation with the Vatican because I was fired. And so I am continuing to work by myself. But I know I am in relationships when some individuals, some eye individuals of the Vatican that they want to be public, but they have personal contact with me. I see.

And I'm so glad of that because this fact increased my determination. Yes, well, thank you for sharing that. Okay, my last comment question. So here in the future human, we explore the future human. But to do that we need to see where we are, our place, and very importantly also, that's why we've also been reflecting with others.

Often someone says that the man want to do as God.

You froze there. The man won't want to.

And if the eloim came from other words, we are like them. We want to explore. To explore other words. All right, so you jumped already into what I was going to ask you because we want created or fabricated other species. Yes.

Just like they make with us. Well, look, all that may sound too crazy, but if you think what we do with cats and dogs, you don't hear domestication. We've domesticated many species and now with AI, many people talk about hybridizing with the machines. Well, these things can have their moral derivatives, but we entertain them. Well, why not entertain them in a wider context of what we discussed today as to the future human?

Yes, but what is interesting is that human species has many characteristics of domesticated species. Many characteristics. And the question is, who domesticated us? Because no one species domesticates herself. It's necessary.

There is another, but many biologists say that, say that we are characteristics typical of a domestical species. Thank you, Maro. That in the Bible is basically present a possible truth about our origins. Yes, and that's precisely why I wanted to be in conversation with you. Thank you so much for sharing.

I'm frozen and you are frozen too. Thank you very much for sharing this with us and for doing it in English. I didn't understand because you were frozen. Yes, I'm saying thank you for sharing this with us, for doing it in English. And now I'll open it up to the rest of the audience for their comments and questions for about 25 more minutes, if you don't mind.

Okay, thank you. I hope the audience understood what I said. I think it was very clear and we'll hear from them now. I think you were very clear. Thank you.

If you would like to ask a question, you can use the raise your hand function at the bottom of your screen under reactions. I see we already have quite a few hands up already. And so I will invite Faljin to come in. Please, come on with your question. I would just ask you if you could speak slowly just to make sure that Mauro understands your question.

Thank you. Thank you, Eleanor. Yes, your English is very good and you were very clear. I just wanted to make one comment because I've done seven years of Latin, Greek and Hebrew many, many years ago. And I remember my struggle with Hebrew was that we don't know what the vowels are.

So I can say to you, him and hem three different ways. And so that was all my struggle when I had to produce a paper. I think it is subject to many, many different interpretations. And then you have the whole faith tradition of 2000 years. So looking at it as I did 40 years ago, I realized there are tremendous difficulties in translating the Old Testament, but a lot less in the New Testament.

And we have a wrathful God, we have a judgmental God, we have a God. That's. Then, you know, you can come up with what like Ian McGilchrist thinks that goodness, beauty and truth are important. And so I think that I understand your work. I think it's quite a laborious thing that you are trying to achieve.

Because we don't know what all the vowels are in Hebrew, so we can come up with different interpretations. But I like to look at the faith tradition and a sense of people and that has led to terrible things as well. So I think we just always have to continually evaluate. But thank you. Leave this for some other comment.

Thank you. To you. In effect, it's right. The ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. The vowels were put by the Masorets between the fifth and the 9th century before Christ.

But not to be accused. No. Yes.

To chose my Bible. I translated the masoretic Bible that you know, is the official Bible of the tradition. The Masoretic Bible is considered the official. I know there are many bibles in the story. There are the Masoretic Bible, the Sumerian Bible, the Greek Bible, the Syrian Bible Bible and so on.

But given that the theologians tells us that the true Bible is the Masoretic. I use that. Well, that depends. Not my choice. If you accept that that's the only true Bible.

But I only read the test of Qumran. I read the Old Testament in Greek and so on, of course. But when I speak in public, I prefer to speak about the so called official Bible.

Thank you. Thank you, Valjun, for coming in. Jeremy, would you like to join the. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Very interesting. I really enjoyed it. I think that one of the questions what I'd like to hear more about, and I don't know, again, it's time, and I'm sure it's complex, is the sense of the spirit in David Bohm's work, science and the spirit. For example, there's these.

And I suppose in the narrative as I understand it, which is know, in reading Bohm and in reading McGillcrest, my spirit led and was aligned very much to the way that I understood the teachings of Jesus. Certainly not maybe conventional religious. Sure. I mean, I don't regard myself as a conventional religious person, but the Holy Spirit is, in a sense, what Jesus says, that he leaves. And I think in the narrative, those people know you have this thing, the mystery of the resurrection in a way, where he comes back.

And so I think none of what you're saying really rocks my world, to be honest. As a person who follows in the way of Jesus, I don't see that anything you saying really rocks my world because I walk in the spirit of Jesus, of that risenness. And if he was, you could call him an alien who came down or if he was sort of married off with maybe someone from a higher order that we don't know about. I think that his message of love and peace and nonviolence, as in the sermon on the mount, and those things are what we follow in the way of. And certainly, I think there's been corruption and contemption and a kind of war that's gone on around with many theologians.

So I just wanted to say I appreciate that. And my question is, so what would you say the Holy Spirit is? And isn't that what Jesus really gave? And how does that relate to love and joy and peace and patience, et cetera? Thank you.

There are many studies of the Jesuits in which is written that the Holy Spirit is a christian transposition of the Gabriel of the Old Testament.

One of these Jesuits is a cardinal in France. He's a theological scholar, and he writes clearly that Holy Spirit is the translation. Yes, the translation of the Gabriel of the ancient Testament. But this is a question of faith, and I prefer to not enter in this question because the Bible is an historical book, and I want to say to narrate to my public what it really writes. Okay, thanks very much.

And I really enjoyed it. Thank you. Thank you to you. Thank you. Niels, would you like to come in?

Thank you. Much of what you talked about has got really deep meanings in me from a long life of experience of the spiritual.

I have one question about ancient Hebrew. I've got a friend who was an ancient Hebrew scholar, and he mentioned that the word Yahweh consists of two letters which each describe a different direction. Is that true? I understood from you that Java is just one of the elohims, so it's like an offspring of the same family, so to speak. That's how I would like to see that.

So it's very important for me because I have developed some software, and that is like a process, and that process is like a mind, if I can just say that. And that mind comes about by combining two directions, in a sense that the mind is from the future to the present, and the other direction is the direction that we live. And this was an incredible experience for me to just try this out. It came like an intuition, and then I tried it out, and it had a huge impact.

I will just say that I have always felt this spirit in my life, and the way it manifests itself is like perfection. And I've had experiences of producing perfect things in my life at various stages without any input from myself, so to speak. That's all I want to say. I like the word that the Elohim is.

You mentioned al Shadai in our understanding from our Bible.

He's the God of prospect and a helping hand. And so, in a sense, to me, that is actually what the Holy Spirit is. Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit as the helper who would come, and he will only come because I have to leave you. So by his resurrection, the Holy Spirit was then imparted to all mankind. That's how I see it.

So I will stop now. I would like you to say something about that. I heard with open mind what you said. Yes, but I prefer to remain strictly united with the literal meaning of the Bible. Yes.

Without any theological interpretation. And I appreciate your experience. That, I'm sure is very important for you, and I don't want to question it. Absolutely, yes, but how did the Bible come about? It was oral kind of tradition that carried that through from experiences.

So without experience, there would be no theology.

All is possible, of course, but no one in the world knows when the Bible was, right. Yes. Was written. No one knows when it was written. No one knows when it was read because it was written without vowels.

So it's extremely difficult to reach the real meaning of the Bible.

And it's difficult to understand the real message of the Bible. Yes.

It's important for your experience, I'm absolutely sure. Perhaps you could say something about Yahweh, since Niels asked, and we didn't talk about that word. Yahweh is a name which was pronounced when the Hebrew language did not exist. Yes, many centuries before. So no one knows the real meaning of this term.

The scholars have make many hypotheses about this term, but I prefer to let him untranslate it because each translation is a product of one scholar or two or three or four is not sure. Absolutely, because. No, because we don't know in what language he was pronounced the first time. And it was written several centuries about it was pronounced and the vows were put many centuries after it was written. So about Yahweh, basically, we don't know.

Okay, thank you. I'll just say that I've been reading the Bible for many years, for 60 years, and I take it literally, and I've made up my own interpretation of things. And there are many contradictions and you have to overcome those, too. But I found that the literal thing speaks to me. In my experience.

It grows. Thank you very much. Thank you to you very much. Glenn. Come in.

Hi. Unmute myself. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes.

All right. I have two questions. One pertains to Jesus'miracles and the second pertains to Emmanuel Velikovsky. So the first question I wanted to ask is these miracles that we know from. Know, like splitting the water and the fish and, I don't know, turning something into wine and stuff like that.

Do you think he had, like, high tech gadgets that he used to do that? Or do you think it came from maybe like a telepathic or telemorphic or something like that, from the mind? Did he do it from the mind? Or did he have in Star wars like a laser beam or something like that, with what he could do it? And the second question to Emmanuel Vilikovsky, I was wondering, have you studied him or in your studies?

Did you research him? Because I think that kind of ties into. Because he was a close friend, as I understand, of Ibad, Einstein, which then would tie into David Bohm and to David Pete. So, yeah, those are my two questions. Yes.

I start with the second. In brief, let me say that if Verikowski is, in truth, all the history falls down. All the history falls down. So we don't know.

Belichowski is very appreciated and is also very contrastated.

I don't have studied all this theory, so I don't know. Answer completely to your question. And the first question, the miracles of Jesus. In one of italian books, I examined some of these miracles. And they didn't wear miracles because Jesus speaks to his apostles, to his servants.

And Jesus at one point says to the apostles, is it possible that I have to explain everything to you?

So there's a chance that actually he was trying to say to them that there's some things he cannot really explain and couldn't really show them at their stage of development, I guess. And also with the gospel, we need to pretend they are truth because we don't know who wrote these gospels, because not Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote these gospels. We have holy transcriptions belonging to a time after the life of Jesus. We have more than 20,000 of inscriptions, and there aren't two equals. So we must pretend.

It's difficult to have for sure a truth by the gospels.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you to you. I'm sorry for English.

Gina. Oh, no, I saw Gina disappeared, but maybe that was a mistake. No, here I am. Okay. Hi.

Thank you so much for this important lecture. I don't know if you're going to have time, but I wanted to ask if you've studied any of the gnostic texts and the Naghamati, and if you have any correlation with some of those gospels, particularly related to the Elohim or the origin stories.

The gospels, like the one of Thomas and other like that have not an connection with Old Testament, because as a product of another way of reasoning, are not Jews Testament are not in the history of the Jews of the history reasoning.

I don't know.

Yeah, just to make sure I understood. You're saying that they're totally different and that they're not the same, but some of the stories overlap? No. There were at the time at least 50 form of Christianity. They fought one each other.

And each of this form of Christianity told that they had the true verbs, the true phrases of Jesus, but we don't know what they are.

Well, thank you. Eva, would you like to come in and ask your question in Italian? I could explain more better than that, but it's impossible. I understand a little, but I don't know if I could that.

Eva, you're muted. Ok. There you go. Thank you. Thank you very much for this very fascinating and very multidimensional conversation.

I come from a very different background as a jungian scholar and a kabbalist, so it's a different background and I'm certainly not a hebrew scholar, and I very much appreciate the incredible scholarship that has gone into this. I had a question that I posted over here, if you remember way back, and it might have been the 60s when this book chariots of the gods came out by Eric von because he speaks of the children of the gods. And I think it overlaps to what you're speaking about intermarrying with the children. I think the children of the humans and that there were two different people, that it was fascinating. I remember finding out about it.

In the other one is Elizabeth Heitz's book initiation, where she has her memory of ancient Egypt, of an initiation. She also speaks of what you're talking about, that there was an interrupt marriage between the sons of gods and the daughters of men. Are YOu familiar with these particular. This episode is narrated in chapter six of Genesis, when the author tells us that the sons of Eloims took the daughters of the Adamites because they were Tovot. And Tovot in Hebrew means beautiful, of course, but it means also useful.

Useful for interbreeding. And they did it.

Yeah.

From these unions became the giants. So that is written in the 6th chapter of Genesis, but is written also in the ethiopic book of Enoch. That is not accepted by the CAtholic Church, but is accepted by.

And would you agree that the sons of gods, when they intermarried with the daughters of men, that they pollute, that the consciousness was lowered? Does that make sense to you? But reading carefully the Bible, I don't find a higher conscience in these eloims, no higher conscious. They were men of war. They make it war, make it worse.

And they didn't concern with the religion, with the spirituality, with the events, with the sky.

My study fix with the study of Eric von Daniken and Graham Hancock, too. I have been at home of Graham Hancock. Yes, we talked about for more than 2 hours. Yeah. The Bible talks about an ire civilization before ours.

That was before the warlike. The warlike Elohim before the war. Because you said the Elohim were warlike. Yeah, well, men of war. Yeah, but not only the Elohim of the Bible, also the eloim of the other nations, like Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, hindu culture and so on.

The Greeks, the Romans, they were always the same.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. That would explain a lot of where we are, isn't it? For example, in the Bible, there is a term nephesh.

Nephesh means neck brief only neck and brief. And theologians translated it as soul, but it doesn't mean soul. It means neck.

So person breathing.

Thank you. Thank you to you, Alex. I will hand it back to you now. All right, well, gratitude tomorrow to you for your time. Your scholarship, your great effort, your generosity, and also to Elizabeth and Sebastian, who are behind the scenes, who also make this possible.

Yes, thank you very much for accepting our invitation. Well, this is not only fascinating and interesting, this is a very important and very urgent topic. I think that with respect to the topic, but also with respect to what we did today, it's very important that we give us permission to talk, to talk about these things, about anything. And I think if we can talk about things, we can think those things, and then we can feel them, and then we can know them, and then we can talk again. So thank you.

Thank Paris center. Thank all of you who are here for just entertaining these thoughts. It's an obvious thing to say, but it's in danger of extinction. The ability to talk. Okay, thank you.

Thank you to you. Thank you to all. Thank you for having me with you. Bravo. Bravo.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Alex, this was wonderful. Thank you, Sebastian. Thank you.

Thank you, Mauro. Thank you, Sebastian. And thank you, Alex. And thank you, everybody that joined us today, and we look forward to seeing you at our next online event. Thank you.

Bye bye, everybody. Bye.