Graham Hancock Talks With Mauro Biglino - Gods Of The Bible - 2023-04-06

Are there other traces in the Bible of objects that might reasonably be interpreted as technology? We have the ark, we have the shamir, we have the kavod, we have a ruach. That's the rising up? Yes, the flying. Yes, the ruach.

So some sort of suggestion of a flying machine? Yes, flying machine. Do that. Those are described clearly as flying machine. Of course, in the Bible.

In the Bible. Give me an example. For example, in the Book of Ezekiel, in the Book of Exodus, is clearly described the cupboard of Yahweh, that when Moses called to Yahweh, the possibility to see this coward, and Yahweh says to him, you cannot stay in front of Kavod, because if you are in front of Kavod, you die.

That is important. Yahweh cannot do nothing. So God is not potent in front of the dangerousity of the. And that is very interesting. Yahweh tells to Moses, you can hide you after these rocks.

So the rocks can do what God cannot do, right?

Yes, very much so.

Maro, a pleasure to meet you. I've heard a lot about your work. It's a pleasure for me, and I thank you for having me here in your home. It's an honor. You're welcome.

Very nice to meet you. Now, fundamentally, the issue at stake is translation, the translation of the Bible. So let's establish some things clearly when we talk about the Bible. We're talking about the Old Testament. When we talk about the Bible, normally we talk about the Old Testament also the name.

May I interrupt there just to clarify? Is the Old Testament identical in contents to the Torah? We have many versions of the Old Testament. We have the Old Testament in the masoretic version, that is the official version, we have the older testament of the Samaritans, who contains 300 differences from the Old Testament of the Masoretic. We have the Old Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that have, for example, only in the book of Isaiah 250 differences.

Okay, so we have many Old Testament, right? But they. The theologians says that the Old Testament. True. Is that in the version of masoretic.

Okay, explain Masoretic to me. Masoretic is a family named also school of Tiberiade, that worked on the version of the Old Testament between 16 and 19 century after Christ. And they added the vowels because the Old Testament was written only by consonant, so the people could read it, could insert whichever they wish to. Exactly. So this masoretic school fixed the vowels to fix the possibility of reading the Old Testament.

And I translated this not because I think it is the best or the unique of the truth. But because the theologians say is the truth, this is the definitive. The definitives. First of all, with our friends, I apologize for my English, but I'm learning it since few months. And so I hope to make you understand.

You're certainly making me understand. So I still want to come to this point that the original book is the Torah. Yes. And that's the name of the Hebrew Bible. Yes.

If I take the masoretic translation of the Torah, it's identical in content. They contain the same books, not in all the translations. Right? There are many different. The differences and often are also important.

When we are in front of this book, we have only be careful to the contest. To the contest. Because the translation of a unique term is always uncertain. Is uncertain. Also, if all the scholars of the world say that this is the translation is not certain, right.

They're using their authority. Okay? They use their authority because often they are dogmatic, of course. And so we have to use the context to understand the real meaning of single terms like the verb bara, who is present in the first verse of the Bible. In the Genesis.

Bereshit barai loim Ashamai Maret Aratz saw the term shadai. That doesn't mean Almighty, but it means lord of the mountains, lord of the step. But in the Bible, you find always the translation Almighty. But they know is not Almighty. Because, for example, in the Bible of Jerusalem, in the notes they write that the translation Almighty is a mistake.

Right? But since in the Bible must be God, God must be Almighty. So they insert Almighty. Also, they know that Shaddai doesn't mean Almighty. So.

But to be clear, in the original Hebrew, if somebody is a hebrew speaker and understand Hebrew, clearly, they will not read. Yes. They will not read the word almighty. No, exactly. They understand the real meaning.

So the problem is with the translation out of Hebrew into other languages. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. What is your special qualification to translate and to comment on biblical text?

I studied Hebrew with the hebrew community of Turin. After I started to translate. What led you to start learning Hebrew? For my interest. For my personal passion.

My personal passion, as you. I wanted to understand, really, because I know Latin, Greek, ancient Hebrew. And so I wanted to know what is really written in this so called holy book. Yes. And after I started to translate for me, the publishing house Sao Paulo, that is the main important publishing, catholic publishing house of the Vatican, saw my translation.

And after they asked me to translate for them. I see. And I translate 70 books of the Old Testament. They published them exactly as I translated. You were translating into Italian or into which language?

Into Italian. Into Italian, yeah. But when I was translated for them, for example, the term eloim was not translated, remained eloim. I see. Because in the word, nobody knows the really meaning of the term Eloim.

So it's better not translate it, but to leave it as it. As it is. Exactly. Which is. So that's a transliteration that we're looking at.

In my contract, they wrote that I must make a literary translation. So terms as Shadai Eloim were not translated, they were left as they were. Interesting. So it's true to say then, that you're an official Bible translator for the Vatican? Yes.

For the publishing Sao Paulo. For the Vatican, yes. And how is the relationship between you and the Vatican? When I started to explain to the public the really meanings and when in 2010, I started to write my first book about the literary translation of the Bible, I was fired in 1 minute. 1 minute, yeah.

It's very explosive subject. All finished. Right. So you had a temporary connection with the Vatican. Yes.

And that resulted in the translation of 70 books. Yes. After they published this 70 book with my name, and they're still in print, they now changed my name. They made, I don't know, a revision of this book. So to can insert another name and cancel my name.

And when the relationship finished, they started again to translate Elohim with God. But when I was working for them, Elohim was not translated. So do you think this is the essence of the problem then, between you and the Vatican is the. Oh, yes. Great problem.

But in 2016, I organized a meeting with four of the main theologians in Italy, one Catholic, all academics, an archibi of Orthodox Church, rabbi, chief of Hebrew community, and the most important biblical translator, Protestant. We met in front of 600 people.

They must say in front of these people that in the Bible there is no the concept of creation by nothing. There is not the concept of transcendence, there is not the concept of spirituality, there is not the concept of Almighty. And so I was here and I thought in my mind, but they are saying what I say normally. Yeah. Let's dig deeper into this question of El and Elohim and Yahweh or y h vh.

Yes. If I understand y h vh, it's supposed to mean I am that I am or I am what I am. Is that incorrect? No, it's not correct, because nobody knows the real meaning of the tetragrammaton. Yes.

Because when it was pronounced, the Hebrew language did not exist. Right. So nobody knows in what language was. Let me pause you there. You're saying the Hebrew language did not exist and when it was pronounced, are we talking about to Moses for sample?

Yes. And of course, nobody can absolutely confirm that Moses was a real historical figure at all. But if he was, then they would put the date at maybe 1200 bc. 1200. Or in opinion of other scholars, 505th century BC.

BC. So much later. So there's some disargument about, but nobody is sure about this. But when did the Hebrew language come into existence?

In that moment, Aramaic was the international language language as the English now. Yeah, but we don't know. Pardon? We don't know in what language the so called Yahweh speaked. But, for example, we must know that the vowels of Yahweh were put 2000.

2000 year after their first pronunciation. So nobody knows real sound of this name. If we accept the early dates for Moses, 1200 bc. Yes. You're saying that the language that Moses spoke could not have been Hebrew?

No, the language could have been ancient Egyptian. Yes. Perfect. Yeah. Could have been ancient Egyptian.

Egyptian. Is it controversial to say that the Hebrew language did not exist in 1200 bc? In that time, started to exist a form of language which is defined a previous Hebrew. Old Hebrew. Old Hebrew.

But it's not Hebrew because the Hebrew really started to exist as a dialect of western Semitic only in the 10th century before Christ. Right. So this entity called y, h, vh or Yahweh. We don't know what language he spoke to Moses in? No, no, we don't know.

But since Moses was reared in the household of the pharaoh, it's most likely to be in the ancient egyptian language. Yes. Does that make sense? Yes. So later on, much later on, it is imposed into another language which is Hebrew.

Yes. And they don't use vowels at that time, is that right? So Y-H-V-H are all consonants and we don't know what the vowels are? No, we don't know. We don't know.

The vowels started to be written between the 6th and the 9th century before. After Christ. After Christ. After Christ. Right.

So that's when. Sorry for English. Okay, no problem. So this is an interpretation in the hebrew text that is put upon those consonants, yhva, and generally it's interpreted as God. Now, what about El and Elohim?

And how do they relate to Yahweh or yhvh? L could be. Could be, but it's not sure. Could be the singular of Loem, but it's not sure. L and Loem could be two terms independent and the singular of Loim could be loa that correspond to Allah in the Semitic.

Oriental, eastern semitic. I'm thinking of places in Israel like Bethlehem means the house of God, house of El, which is often translated as the house of God. But you're saying that there's no legitimacy to that translation. No, absolutely.

Okay, but I sure of that. Not because I know the real translation of the term l or eloim, but because nobody knows the translation. 1st, 2nd, if we read what is really written in the Bible, all people understand that El and Eloim. And Eloah doesn't mean God, right? Can't mean.

God, right? Can't mean. And would any modern day Hebrew speaker and Hebrew expert agree with you on do they? My manager. So where do they get?

Is studying Hebrew with University of Jerusalem. And they hear from her teachers translations that are similar to mine. Right.

And yet modern Judaism defines itself as a monotheistic faith which believes in one God. So where is that God? In the Hebrew Bible, there are many Judaism, but there are many christianities too. But they all share the view that they're monotheistic religions, as indeed is Islam. They would define themselves as monotheists.

Yes, but there are many important executives. Hebrew that tells that writes clearly that l, eloim, Eloah, Yahweh doesn't refer to the same person.

Okay, tell me, what are the implications of that? What does that lead us to? What are your conclusions from that? That Eloim was superior civilizations that divided the various population in Kindles. Right.

The populations of the whole earth, or of just the Middle east? Of the whole earth. And Yahweh was in charge of the population named the sons of Israel. That is Jacob, not the leader of all Hebrews, but only of the family of Jacob. Right.

The other family of Hebrew, like Moabites, ammonites, Edomites, et cetera, was assigned to other elohims that the Bible names clearly. Kamosh, Milcom, Dagon, Asherah. And in many Dagon and Asherah I recognize as canaanite or so called philistine deities. But they are Present in the Bible. They are referenced in the Bible.

We hear that the Ark of the Covenant destroys Dagon in the city of Ashdod. They're present in the Bible for sure. But what are they defined as? What are they? Eloim.

Yeah, always Eloim. But the theologians say that those Eloim were not existent, were only idols or idols. I understand Dagon and Asherah being referred to as idols, but the word eloim is also, according to you, wrongly translated as the one God. Yes. It is a wrong translation.

So Eloim refers to a multiplicity of. Yes, to a multiplicity of gods. By short, yes, absolutely. I wanted to reduce the number of the eloim present in the Bible. I reached the number of 23, right?

23, yes, but I reduced the number of the Eloima present in the Bible. Right. So there are no doubts. How did you reduce it?

Reading and translating the Bible, which is name, which reading also the writings of the peoples that fighting with the people of Israel. But those peoples are of the same family of Abraham. And there they, in their scripts, named clearly the name of their eloims. And the name of their eloims is present in the Bible. For example, in the Bible of the judges is named Kamosh as the God of Moabites, or Moabites.

There is a stone of Moabites in which is written that they fought with Israelites and they win. And they win against the people of Yahweh. And they were ruled by their eloim. So you're seeing these eloim as some sort of. You're not jumping to conclusions about what they are, but you're saying they're not gods, they are of an iger civilization.

Yes. That could survive the great fluid. Okay, we'll come to that. So let's go with this idea that peoples from another civilization are advising or organizing peoples around the world. So we have Israel.

We have the peoples of Israel. We're told that they're brought out of Egypt by Moses. Does Moses receive a divine instruction or any instruction to take the people out of Egypt? And if so, who gives that instruction? Yes, but in fact, Moses told to that Eloim, who are you?

Yes, because he wanted to be sure with which he was speaking. Okay. Because he done news. I suppose the most controversial thing that you're saying, really, is that God, as we are taught to understand God. I don't know.

Personally speaking, I'm not a Christian. I don't belong to any of the mainstream religions. I don't have strong religious views. I have had experiences that I would describe as spiritual, but I'm not a Christian. But I have an idea of what christians think God is.

And what Christians think God is, is a man, often with a beard, who is the father of Jesus Christ somehow, and is alone. He's one God. One God. And if I understand you correctly, you're saying there's no basis for that in the Bible. In the Bible there is no basis.

And that's the Old Testament of the Bible. Old Testament, absolutely. There is no basis for this construction of the image of the God like a person. When do you think that image began to be constructed in the Bible? In the Bible?

At the time of the exile. At the time of the exile. In Babylonia. In Babylonia, right. In Babylonia, right.

Because before they weren't conscious of the existence of many elohims. Yes, clearly in the Bible. Yeah. What I wonder is if this Elohim idea is correct and that we have an organizational force which is organizing different cultures around the world. What was going on between the ancient Egyptians and the early Hebrews at that time?

I mean, Moses leads the children of Israel out of Egypt, we're told in the Bible. But Egypt seemed to carry on in its own way afterwards for at least another thousand years. Did they have an Eloim or looking after them?

What about Mesopotamia? The Eloim, they don't call them Eloim, of course, because was another language. But I think they were the same in Hebrew. Was Eloim. In Mesopotamia was Elu or Ilano.

In Egypt was other name. But the same function. Yeah, but the same function, the same characteristics.

So to cut a long story short, do you interpret these entities as human beings or you interpret them as human beings? So this is where there's a crossover with my work and your work, in the sense that I have advocated the possibility of a lost civilization of some sort which originated during the ice age and which was destroyed in the global cataclysms that brought the ice age to an end. Now, it has for a long time seemed to me that the wisdom and knowledge of that civilization was not lost completely, but it was preserved. That there may have been specific groups of people who were charged with carrying that knowledge down into the world. So I can see the crossover with, it's absolutely possible that eloim.

Were those human beings with special knowledge. Yes. Of iger technology. Now, the thing is that we have a very long gap if we agree on the flood, which is another question I want to ask you. The biblical flood is, of course the best known flood myth in the world.

Everybody knows about the flood of Noah, whatever their religion is today. Everybody knows about the flood of Noah. But not everybody is aware that there are maybe 1000 other stories that tell of a global flood and cataclysm that afflicted the earth and that caused great destruction and changed things completely. And I've long been of the view that the most likely period for that cataclysm is the end of the ice age. It's a time of tremendous global changes.

And it's a particular period called the Younger Dryas. Yes. And it runs roughly for 1200 years, from 12,800 years ago to 11,600 years ago. 11,600 years ago, we get a final massive pulse of meltwater which raises sea levels very rapidly. It's one of the reasons why I'm interested in the story of Atlantis, actually, because that is the date 11,600 years before our time, 9000 years before the time of Solon is the date that Plato gives for the submergence of Atlantis.

I know. So if these calculations are correct and we're looking at a global cataclysm that had its final massive spasm of disaster 11,600 years ago, that's a long gap to the time of the Hebrews and the exodus from Egypt, which is 1200 bc, 3200 years ago. So we have about 8000 years gap now. One of the things that my critics find hardest to accept is the idea that a wisdom tradition, that specific knowledge, perhaps even specific technologies originating with a lost civilization could have been preserved for 8000 years. Preserved?

It's absolutely possible. So talk to me about why it's possible. Yes, because also in the egyptian culture I read that the priest, Phoenician Sankunyaton, who wrote and Elzebio of Cesarea report his words and he said that the priest of ancient Egypt uncovered under the myths a true history of an ancient civilization. Well, in Egypt we have entities like this one here and this one here. These are not Horus and Anubis.

These are the souls of Pei and Necken. And they are also related to another group called the followers of Horus. And their purpose? Specific purpose, as described in the ancient egyptian text, was to transmit knowledge from the past into the future. That they're a kind of secret brotherhood.

They could also be a secret sisterhood because the ancient Egyptians were very admiring of powerful women as well. They were a secret society, if you like. I prefer not to say a brotherhood, a secret society which passed down knowledge from the past into the present.

The most difficult thing to believe is that such a secret society could survive for 8000 years. Often when I'm criticized about that, I point out that there are ideas that do last for thousands of years and that do continue and that are repeated. Even the idea of the flood is an idea that has lasted for thousands of years. But what's your feeling about the dating of this? Do you accept the notion of a flood more than 11,000 years ago?

Or would you prefer it more. Is there anything in the Bible 11,000 years ago? It's fascinating that where the Bible says that the ark of Noah ends up is Mount Ararat, which is now in Turkey. Yes. Although it's actually visible from Armenia.

You can see the Mount Ararat more clearly from Armenia, but it's now in Turkey. Now, the interesting thing is, there's no question whatsoever, from a factual point of view, that whatever floods took place at that time, at the end of the ice age, none of them reached the slopes of Mount Ararat. They did not. Mount Ararat was never submerged 11,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. It was not submerged.

But the idea that survivors of a flood would seek refuge in high places, that makes sense to me. Yes. Because also Nicola Damasheno write in his books that when Noah arrived on top of this mountain, he found here other people. Interesting. Found other people.

And these people were afraid to descend. Right. And Noah, with her sons, convinced them to descend. Right. But this is not in the Bible.

This is in some other text. This is in the text of Nicola of Damascus, first century before Christ. Right. So it's an exegesis on the. So how interesting.

So he found people there already, which is what I would expect. I mean, the reason that Mount Ararat is of interest to me is because of its relative proximity to these sites now being discovered in Turkey. Gobekli Tepe is also 11,600 years.

Tepe is another proof of an Igar civilization. I believe it is, yes. I think we're looking at evidence for that. But what's fascinating is the thought that the. And this is what archaeologists most oppose, is that the thought that knowledge could be preserved within select groups and passed down to the future.

For that to happen for 8000 years is something that many skeptics find very difficult to accept. Yes. I think that history must be rewritten. Rewritten? Absolutely.

Because there are too many things that the history is not able to explain. Absolutely.

Let's consider technology. As you know. Well, my background was in journalism, and journalism took me to Ethiopia. And in Ethiopia I heard that Ethiopia claims to possess the lost ark of the Covenant. I became very interested in the ark of the Covenant.

Fascinating object, the way that it's described in the Book of Exodus, the blueprint for the construction of the ark, the things that the ark then does subsequently, during the conquest of the promised land. Sounds like a weapon of some kind. It's very hard to interpret it in any other way. What do you think the Ark of the Covenant was? But I think what is written in the Bible.

Can be true? Yeah, because the ark is defined as an object that produces. It contained some form of energy. And was also an instrument for the communication between Moses or the people of Israel. With his Elohim named Yahweh, if I may say, mistranslated in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark.

As a radio for talking to God. Talking to God, not talking to Yahweh, talking to Yahweh. Whatever he was. Whatever he was. Whatever he was.

I think this is clear in the Bible. There is no doubt, of course, we can think that the Bible is not true. But I prefer to pretend that the Bible is a true history. Like all history books all around the world. That contains always the truth.

But not only also the books of history written today, also the books written about the second war, et cetera. So it's the same. It's the same mystery, indeed. So I'd like you to talk a little more about the technological aspects of the Ark of the Covenant. But also, can you think of other objects in the Bible.

Which maybe deserve a technological interpretation rather than a spiritual interpretation? There is another object named Kabod. Kabod is always translated as glory of Yahweh. Right. But in Book of Ezekiel, there is some clear translations.

That can allow us to think that it was a technological tool. In one italian translation, Sao Paulo editions, is written that Ezekiel ear the sound produced by Kabod, which was under. On the back of him when this cavod were arising from the earth. And this translated in this way. In the Sao Paulo Bible, the exact translation of the hebrew term that is not Baruch, but is what happened to Cavod.

Cavod, no, Barun is the term that indicates the fact that Kavod was rising from the earth. So it was rising up, producing a great noise that Ezekiel heard. But this noise was behind him. Is it also the Kavod that burns the face of Moses? Yes, it's the same.

So it produces sound, and it burns the same as the sun. It sounds very. It does sound very technological. Yes. What do you make of the Tower of Babel?

Oh, is a topic very interesting. Because the narration of the Tower of Babel is very strange. Because that people wanted to reach the sky. So Yahweh wanted intervention to destroy. And after the Bible says that Yahweh divided languages.

But if you read carefully previous chapters of the Bible, you read that the languages were before divided. I see. Yeah. Each people has his own language. So when Yahweh destroyed this tower, divided this alliance distributing these people between the others.

So he don't create any languages because the diverse languages were already existent. Is clearly written in the Bible. Clearly. And yet not made available to us who don't speak Hebrew. Yes.

Because the translation distorts the information. Yes. Because the Hebrew Bible is rewritten or first, some parts of written after the exile of Babylonia. Right.

We cannot be sure. And after all, the new writers written what they wanted to tell to people. Right. And they created monotheism. Okay, in summary, in your view, monotheism is not a natural outcome of the Bible.

It's a deliberate man made strategy. In the Bible there was a monolatry. Monolatry? Monolatry, worshipping one idol. They were with servant, one of many eloims.

Right. Like as other peoples, every people as one or many. Let's consider these Eloim, these Elohim, the notion of a secret society which controls advanced knowledge and has ideas about how human beings should be organized. So we're saying that they were present in the time of Moses. They were present in many other cultures at that time as well.

Are they still with us today? Oh, it's absolutely possible. I agree. Absolutely. Because we are not sure of what they were.

And the Elohim, I know, for example, protestant pastor Barry Downing, who write in his books that eloims are here and are ruling all around the world. Like a secret government. Exactly. And he is a protestant pastor who has a personal faith in God. But he tells that Elohims were not God.

Absolutely. Okay, they were not God. Were they good or were they evil? Were there, like humans, both good and evil? The deficient depends on the position, because define a devil the adversary.

Define devil the adversary, always. There's a controversial view of the encounters with entities in the Bible I know quite well, although I've not seen him for some years. Professor Benny Shannon from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Benny Shannon is one of the world experts on the visionary brew of the Amazon called ayahuasca. Okay.

Benny has drunk ayahuasca 400, maybe 500 times. I've worked with ayahuasca too. My total is more like 70 or 75, not 500. But in Benny's view, he puts it forward as a hypothesis. We see Moses at the burning bush and he says, do we normally see a burning bush in daily life?

No, we don't. Especially if it speaks to us. We can see a burning bush, but a burning bush that speaks to us is unusual. And he points out that in Ayahuasca visionary states, we often meet trees that speak to us and other entities that speak to us, and sometimes they may even be in flames. And he proposed that in that part of the Middle east, there is syrian rue and mimosa hostilis, which both together contain the same molecules as ayahuasca.

So the bottom line is that Beni Shanon was suggesting that Moses was on ayahuasca, or it's possible that he was having a visionary experience, that many of these. And it's very important to be clear when we talk about visionary experiences, that we are not saying those experiences are not real. We're not saying that visionary experiences can be real in every meaningful sense of the word, but we're saying that they're harder to fit in to the western way of looking at things. I'm just wondering what your view of this is. There's a case to be made that almost all religions arose out of visionary experiences first, that people had visions of entities and encounters.

Of course it's possible. But I wanted to tell you another thing. The term Hebrew, translated with bush, is present also in other part of the Bible, and it means Rocky Mountain. And so it's possible that Moses saw a fire over a rocky mountain. So it's another case of mistranslation.

Exactly. A rocky mountain, as in effect, in reality in other parts of the Bible, is the name of a rocky mountain. So we can think that there was not a bush with a fire, but this fire was on a rocky mountain where there was the cupboard of Yahweh, this glowing burning.

So since we know that in that region where many archaeologists found, for example, the twelve stones cited in the Bible, et cetera, in that stones there is only some substance like petrol. Right? So when the cabood of Yahweh is posing on the earth, could provoke fire, could create fire. So we are not sure if this term means bush or rocky Mountain. Okay?

We are not sure. So we're very happy. My system is always to have open mind to all possible solutions. I think that's a good system, especially when we're dealing with a document that's quite difficult to understand and is very difficult to understand and has been through already multiple changes of language. Okay.

Which causes further. We cannot be always sure. Absolutely. We must not be dogmatic. Absolutely, we must not be dogmatic.

And yet it is a book which has promoted a great deal of dogma. Oh, yes. And been responsible for many of the problems in the world. And the last, certainly in the last 2000 years, because in my translation I'm using several dictionaries, theological and not theological, dictionaries of Hebrew language. And so I think that it's necessary to be open to all possible solutions.

I agree. But we must know that there are several possible solutions, not only one. Absolutely. Agreed. Yeah.

Tell me what your view of the book of revelation is. Oh, I think book of revelation, I think, is a book written in a sort of codex for the church, the many church that were arising in the time, so to not speak to the powerful of the time, like roman emperor, et cetera. And I think it's a book written in Codex. Do you think it's for that times? What about the prediction of the end of the world?

But I tend not to believe prophecies. I think you're very wise, because, for example, all the prophecies written in the Bible, all the prophecies were written after what was just happened. After always after, rather than before, always. So they're the opposite of prophecies there. Okay.

So what we were saying was that the Elohim are clearly human beings of some sort. Yes. Is that too rapid a conclusion? Could they be something other than human beings? You keep an open mind on everything.

Do you keep an open mind on that? We can try it. Okay. But do you prefer your conclusion is we're talking about human beings when we talk about the same as you want, because I'm interested in their vices. Human beings have vices.

Did the Elohim have vices? But Yahweh wanted to have every day from two to five liters, because I don't know how many gallons of shakar that was an alcoholic. Where is this stated? Is this stated in the Bible? In the.

Stated in the Bible? In the Torah. Okay. In the Torah. And he wanted also every day, the smoke of the meat burnt, because, for example, in the book of the number, chapter 28, this smoke that he wanted to smell was able to calm him.

Yes, absolutely. I remember that passage. Absolutely. So it's possible that in this smoke, in effect, I talked about biologists, there are some molecules that are similar to the molecule of the endorphine. I don't know how to say.

Endorphins. Yeah. Endorphin that our brain producing, produces when we are in a state of.

And in the book of number, Yahweh tells several times that this smoke comes. You. Yes. He says, these smokes call me, because these smoke call me. Right.

Several times. Yeah. So it's clear. And you wouldn't expect the one God, the creator of the universe, to need to be calmed by Smoke. No interest, but it's clear.

It's not my translation. No, absolutely. Yeah. So that sounds. It's the normal translation.

It sounds more like a human being and needs and wishes and weaknesses of a human being. Okay, so does the Bible tell us, give us any hint as to where these entities, these Elohim, this Yahweh, where they come from? No, the Bible don't says where they come from, and so I don't do suggestions in that. But in psalm 24 is written that Yahweh, with his cabood were passing through a gate that opened after an order and opened le olam I e on unknown place. So is the most important passage of the Bible, psalm 24.

And this psalm 24 was used also by Monsignor Corado Balducci, Vatican, who said. Because now he's dead. Who said that the two first verses of this psalm contains the proof that the Bible knew the existence of the inhabitants of the earth and the inhabitants of the universe, that they were different. And the last verses of that psalm talks about this passage through the gates. And in the English Bibles, the terms in Hebrew, petahim and sherim, are translated by hebrew translators.

Gates. Gates. So we may only speculate. Yes, but I stop at the literal translation of the Bible. Yes, because after this translation, we have to become with speculation.

Indeed so. But I prefer for now to remain to the literary translation of the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Masoretic Bible. Yeah, I think you're right to do that. It's always interesting to speculate, but what you're doing is you're providing people with new facts that allows us to think more clearly about this important text.

We've spoken of the Ark of the Covenant as a technological object. You've spoken of the kavod. I'm recollecting a thing called the Shamir, sometimes described as. There is also. The Shamir sounds also technological.

Can you talk a little bit about that? Yes. The Shamir is an object very difficult to explain because it's quoted only one or two times in the Bible. But it must be something really, something technological. But I want to work of fantasy, and so I prefer be silent.

You don't want fantasy, but I get that. But are there other traces in the Bible of objects that might reasonably be interpreted as technology? We have the ark. We have the Shamir. We have the kavod.

We have a ruach. That's the rising up. The flying. Yes, the ruach. So some sort of suggestion of a flying machine?

Yes, flying machine.

Those are described clearly as flying machine. Of course, I. In the Bible. In the Bible. Give me an example, for example, in the Book of Ezekiel, in the Book of Exodus, in the Book of Exodus is clearly described the cupboard of Yahweh, that when Moses called to Yahweh, the possibility to see this kabod, and Yahweh says to him, you cannot stay in front of Kavod, because if you are in front of Kavod, you.

So that is important. Yahweh cannot do nothing. Right. So God is not potent in front of the dangerousity of the. And that is very interesting.

Yahweh tells to Moses, you can hide you after these rocks, so the rocks can do what God cannot do. Right. Impressive point. Yes, impressive. Very much so, yeah.

When you was a journalist of the Economist. Yes. You encountered. I encountered the Ark of the covenant. Yes.

I was the East Africa correspondent for the Economist. So I was based in Nairobi, in Kenya, and a number of neighboring countries were countries that I reported on regularly. And one of those countries was Ethiopia. And in Ethiopia, by chance, very shortly after, I had watched the movie raiders of the lost ark with Harrison Ford, very soon after I had watched that, I was on a research trip in Ethiopia, and it came to my attention that the Ethiopians claim to possess this object. Well, obviously I was interested.

This fascinating, powerful, mysterious object, and it's hidden in the mountains of Ethiopia. I had never heard that before, so I began to investigate that particular claim. Now, at that time, which was 1983, the early 1980s, I didn't have any particular interest in history or in prehistory or in archaeology. My interests were much more in current affairs. But I also had the sense that I think any journalist would have presented by this information that there was something going on here, because although archaeologists were rejecting Ethiopia's claim, they're saying there was nothing to it.

It was a complete fantasy. My own eyes showed me that it was central to ethiopian culture. It was fundamental to ethiopian culture, that there was a community of ethiopian Jews. They call themselves the better Israel, the House of Israel. They are known in Ethiopia as the Falashas, and they practice a very ancient form of know.

They only became acquainted with the Talmud as a result of missionary activity from Israel. They did not have the Talmud, but they did have the Torah. So they're a very old form of Judaism. They practiced sacrifice of rams, and this, I believe, is forbidden in Judaism since the destruction of the First Temple. Yes, they practiced sacrifice of rams, and they had a rich history that told how they had come to Ethiopia and how they had brought the Ark of the Covenant with them.

It's a different story from the story that the ethiopian national Epoch tells. The ethiopian national Epoch. Is called the Kebrin Agast, the glory of kings. And in that they claim that the queen of Sheba was an ethiopian queen. She made her famous biblical visit to the court of Solomon.

She was made pregnant by Solomon. According to the ethiopian version, she returned to Ethiopia. She bore the child. His name was Menelik, means the son of the wise man. And the story is that at the age of about 20 or 21.

He went back to Jerusalem. He was recognized by his father. And somehow, after one year in the court of Solomon. He contrived to steal the Ark of the Covenant. This is written in the Kabrinagaste.

And carried it off to Ethiopia. And we are told in the Kabernagast that Solomon was okay with this. Because it meant that God wanted it to be in Ethiopia rather than somewhere else. There are many problems with this story. And this story does not take into account the mysterious presence.

Of a very ancient community of Jews in Ethiopia. And their story about how they got there. And they said they got there by Way of Egypt. That their ancestors spent some hundreds of years on an island in the Nile. And that island, we are quite certain what that island was.

It was the island of Elephantina. Why are we certain? Because there was a jewish temple built on that island. And that jewish temple was built there in the first Temple period. I beg your pardon.

Can I go ahead a little thing? Yes. The Hebrew of Elephantina knew the wife of Yahweh.

They knew the wives of Yahweh. So they were really another kind of jewish religion. Indeed so. Indeed. Indeed.

So here we come to the interesting point where history connects with this story. Because that jewish temple on the island of Elephantina is a fact. It did exist. There were communications between it and Jerusalem. The temple had the same dimensions as the temple of Solomon.

When I search the Bible for an explanation for the construction of the temple. The only explanation I find is as an house of rest for the Ark of the covenant of the Lord. It's a place in which the Ark of the covenant is to be put. And then suddenly, while the first Temple still exists. We have another temple built in Egypt of the same dimensions.

Those ethiopian Jews say that their ancestors were driven out of that island. This also is true. We know from the egyptian history that this happened. There was a jewish community on that island. And there was conflict with the egyptian authorities.

Because the island of Elephantina is dedicated to the egyptian God Kunum. And Kunum is a ram headed deity. So the tension was caused by the sacrifice of rams that was taking place. So the Velashes say, to cut a long story short, that their ancestors fled south. They didn't go north through a hostile Egypt and back to Jerusalem.

They went south, and they followed the Nile river system. They followed the Blue Nile branch, and they ended up in Lake Tana in Ethiopia. And that's the heartland of ethiopian Judaism, Lake Tana, Lake Tana, which is the source of the blue Nile. And suddenly I could see how this story made sense, because how do you get a connection between Jerusalem and Ethiopia? What connects them?

Once you come into Egypt and into the Nile valley? What connects them is the river Nile. And it made perfect sense. And Lake Tana was the place where the Falacius had their homeland. So once I learned all of this, I began to feel that the ethiopian story really deserved serious investigation.

And I looked into it in great depth, and it was the moment where there was a transition in my life from investigating current affairs issues to investigating the past. Okay? It put me on that path. And the very first thing that I felt about the Ark of the Covenant as I was reading, and I read all of the descriptions very, very carefully, is this thing sounds like a piece of technology. It's constructed, it's carefully made.

There's a blueprint, there's instructions on what to do. There's gold, there's wood, there's gold. Yes. There's these mysterious tablets that are placed inside it, whatever they are. And it opened my eyes to the possibility that there might be a forgotten technological episode in the past of humanity.

And I would not have gone on to write my books about the possibility of a lost civilization if I had not first had that encounter with the mystery of the Ark of the Covenant. Personally, I think the ethiopian claim is rather strong for a lot of reasons. But in a way, its role in my life was to educate me as to the range of mysteries in the past that archaeologists completely ignore and just scornfully dismiss. Yes, they are not interested in myths, in traditions, any such thing. They just dismiss it.

And in the process of doing so, as we say in English, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They're missing important things in their desperate effort to be scientists. Okay? So it was an important lesson for me. There are mysteries in the past that are unexplained, which certainly are not explained by the present model of history, and that that model, therefore, must be questioned.

And that's what I've subsequently devoted my life to. And often, I think many mysteries are explained in too simply way. Yeah, that's right. Far too simple, too simply way. Yeah, yeah, definitely.

But I think that your journey in Ethiopia was a great gift for all. Absolutely, absolutely. A great gift for all us. Thank you. It was an amazing adventure for me and it opened my eyes to problems and issues that I had been completely unaware of before, and it set me on the track that I'm still on today.

I think it's impossible to understand the human condition in the present if we have only a single view of the past. Yes, we must have a diversity of views. We must be open to all of them. And this is the main problem I have with archaeology. I would like, if you want to tell about your series ancient.

Ancient apocalypse, ancient apocalypse, that I of course saw totally as I read your books, because I want that the friends of my maurobellian official channel can hear directly from your voice, your experience. It was extraordinary. It was said there was a breakthrough for me. The problem with communicating controversial information about the past is you want to make as strong a case as you possibly can. So that's fine in a book where you have 800 pages and 2000 footnotes, okay.

But with a television program it's more difficult to make that convincing case. Yes. Especially so if you're banned from filming in Egypt, which I am, and Egypt is an important part of my story to tell. You must make your point in each episode within half an hour. So everything has to move very quickly.

But the advantage, the positive side of it, is that it reaches a huge number of people, which the butcher book would not do, several millions and tens of millions. And this is what I wanted to do, was to not to tell people what to think, because academics do that already, archaeologists do that. They say, this is what you should think about the past. But my project is to encourage people to ask questions about the past where there are anomalies, fundamental, exactly where there are things that are not explained in mainstream history.

Archaeologists complained that I was unkind to them in the series and that I should have included many of them in the series, although I did actually include some archaeologists. But my point is that archaeology dominates, completely dominates all thinking about the past. It dominates it from the moment of childhood, the moment a child starts to go to kindergarten, starts to learn something about the past, what they're learning has been filtered through mainstream archaeology. The whole teaching of history and prehistory in schools, in universities, is all based on the opinions of archaeologists. I say opinions, not facts, based on the opinions of archaeologists.

And they certainly do not invite me to appear on programs as their work, to provide a counterbalance, of course. So my view was that in making this series, I was providing a counterbalance to the overdominant position that archaeological opinion occupies, that it's essential that that be questioned, because archaeology is not physics. There's a difference between physics and archaeology. Physics, I accept, is a hard science. Archaeology is not a hard science.

And the further back you go into the past, the more archaeology is based on interpretation of very minimal numbers of artifacts. So really, with archaeology, what we have is the opinion of a group of scholars. We do not have many facts, and I don't think the public are fully aware of that. So I hoped with the Netflix series that I would make the public more widely aware of that situation. And the problem is that often the opinion of the archaeologist becomes dogma.

Yeah, it becomes dogma. It's really very bizarre that it should be so. There should be no place for dogma in science. As I say, archaeology. The claim of archaeology to be a science at all is very flimsy.

I don't think archaeology deserves to be called a science, but there is a tendency in also other scientific endeavors for a particular outlook to establish itself as the way things are. But the history of science makes it absolutely clear to us that there are no fixed or firm ideas, that ideas change constantly. And what was yesterday's dogma becomes tomorrow's weight paper. It's not listened to anymore. So I don't understand why scientists don't learn more from that.

Even in the hard sciences, everything should be provisional. We are offering ideas. We're investigating a complicated problem. But what we offer is not necessarily fact. It is where we are now.

And this is what I think archaeologists should be doing. But often they don't want be askred because they have the truth. Many archaeologists asked, actually why even my series was allowed, should never have been given permission to be shown. In their view, yes, but when you ask them to give substantive reasons for that, they're incapable of doing so. They cannot provide any substantive reason apart from what they say is, we are archaeologists.

We know everything. Hancock is wrong, and that's a fact. This is no way of debate and no way of argument at all. And it's a sign of a problem that we have in our society, where so called experts, people who define themselves as experts in a field, dominate the field so much that they distort reality. And I believe that's what's happening in the understanding of our past.

And it's why I'm grateful to Netflix for giving me the opportunity to make this series and to present controversial ideas to a large global audience and to set up a global conversation about our past. And of course, fundamental in the past of the world is the Bible that you're translating. It's a fundamental document which plays huge role. Interesting is that the Bible confirm your theories also, if the Bible is only one of the books written in human history and the Bible is the book of one little people. Exactly.

Only one little. The family of Jacob. Not of the Hebrew, of the family of Jacob. But in any case, the contents of the Bible confirms your theories. Give me some ideas about why does it confirm my theories?

Of course, because the Bible speaks clearly about the eloims that have technology absolutely superior to the humankind of this time. Of that time, yeah. And so it's clear there is no discussion, only the dogmatics. So it's a record of communication between people who had advanced technology and a people who did. Yes.

An archie, bishop of the Orthodox Church several years ago told me, Mauro, you know, because we are friends, you know that I agree with you, but I don't can tell because the system kills me.

Well, indeed the system did used to kill people, literally. Oh yes, the Roman Catholic Church. I received a ballot. Oh, really? Yes.

Tell me more. Many years ago you received a bullet, a military bullet. And that's a threat to you? Yes, with a letter in which was written. If I had continued to made conferences.

I made 300 conferences in Italy, Germany, French, Portugal, Croatia, Switzerland. If I had continued, they had the necessity to kill me or to kill one of my days. But likely they did. Nothing happened. But the threat is there and the days of Giordano Bruno are not over.

Okay, okay. Fortunately we are living in other times. Yeah, fortunately we are. But those times are relatively recent when the church was capable of burning people in extremely painful, absolutely and awful ways. I find a great deal of hypocrisy at the church in this matter.

I draw your attention particularly to the spanish conquest of Mexico. Yes. Between 1519 and 1521, those Spaniards who were brutal murderers of the worst kind claimed to be horrified when they witnessed human sacrifice of the Aztecs. The Aztecs would carry out acts of human sacrifice, but not a single one of them was able to contemplate the possibility that burning a fellow human being at the stake is an act of human sacrifice. They are sacrificing that entity to what they believe is God.

It's no different. They were in no position to. So Yahweh ask it human sacrifice did he of child. Tell me more. I didn't know that.

Please talk to me some more about that. In Book of Jeremiah, it tells that he had the necessity to request this human sacrifice because the people wanted to obey his orders. And of course, there's the case of Isaac, who Yahweh instructs to kill his. Is it Isaac? Isaac instructs Isaac to sacrifice his son and then changes his mind at the last minute.

Very cruel behavior. It was normal. It was normal. And Abraham accepted it as normal because Yahweh wanted to try the fate of Abraham. Yes.

And when he saw that Abraham were disposal to give his son in sacrifice, Yahweh sent an so called angel. In Hebrew, Malach, that means a messenger, to stop it. Because Yahweh saw that Abraham was able to kill his son to demonstrate his faith, his dispunability to obey orders of Yahweh. It was normal. Very cruel.

Absolutely normal. Very cruel and obnoxious. Yes, absolutely. Behavior. Absolutely.

Yahweh don't accept criticism. Absolutely. So he cannot be the God of love. Absolutely. No.

He was a God of war. Only a God of war. A God, not a God, of course, but an entity, to use this term, an entity of war. A human being who uses war. Fascinating.

If your interpretation of the Bible were to be widely accepted, it would completely destroy faith in the Bible, is that not correct? Yes, but what is important, and in the conferences, in the lectures, I always say that this. I don't say that God does not exist. Right. I don't know about God.

I don't speak about God. I only say that in that book there is no spiritual God. There are the eloim. Yes. And the BIble is the history of the relationship between Yahweh, one of the eloim, and one people.

Because Yahweh don't, you didn't much care about others. No, the others did not exist. Or if they don't want to submit, they must be terminate. Right. Stop.

The Bible is this book, nothing else? Yes.

It's really important to get these translations correct in a book that is so influential. Yes. And so I value and respect your work in putting some correction to this record. You have a book coming out translated into English.

Elizabeth is ready next month. Next month. And its title is God's in the Bible. God's. God's in Bible.

God's in the Bible. Okay, so I'm a layman. I know nothing about the Bible. I've read tiny bits of it as a child and haven't since. I know very little.

So to begin with, you talked a lot about the Elohim, but what's the orthodox understanding of what the Elohim are? What do most people assume they are? Are they angels? Are they different from angels? What's the normal explanation?

They are thinking what the Catholic Church think. But what is that? God. But in the traditional orthodox understanding of the Elohim, they're plural, right? The sons of God mated with the daughters of men.

They refers to Greek Bible, not to the Hebrew Bible, but in that Bible. In the Greek Bible, their orthodox understanding of Elohim, is that to be the same as God or is that as angels or is that being. No, Elohim is always translated as God, God. The Elohim in Greek is Theos Elohim in Hebrew, Teos in Greek, God in other. In modern translation.

When I had this meeting with those four important theologians, they said, all four, they said that in the Bible we cannot have the certainty of God. So I'm sure that the Bible doesn't speak of God. But in that occasion also, those theologians said the same thing. Okay, so they said there's no one God in the Bible. Those people agreed with you, is that what you're saying?

Many people. Many people, many people. More and more and more. In less than three years in my channel, we have almost 25 million of views in less than three years. Okay, but if I go up to any normal priest and say to him there's no God in the Bible, of course he's going to disagree.

Why should anybody believe your interpretation rather than the orthodox interpretation of the most part of priest doesn't want hear my word because often they are increases in cris, because they don't know how to answer my questions. Because I read, I read in front of them and they say, explain me what is written here. Okay, but there's a body of biblical scholars around the world who would say that, and also the entire church system would say there is one God and he is described in the Bible. Now that's been that way for 2000 years or more. Now why would everyone have missed this?

Why would you be the first person to get it right? Why should we assume that you are correct rather than 2000 years of people who studied the Bible and said it? First of all, you don't must believe me. You have to control in Hebrew what I say in Italian or in English.

It's all, yes, you have to learn Hebrew. You must not believe me absolutely. In my books, in my books, not in that one, because it's an interview. I always, always write the period in Hebrew. Ed and under it, the literal translation.

So everyone can control what I'm saying. Everyone. If everyone can see the translation, why is everyone else wrong? But because they don't want to hear what I'm saying. Because to have a faith is grateful, is necessary for human brain is necessary.

Many, several scientists studied these questions and they wrote that God is the imagine of a God is in the brain and so easier to believe in a God. And they don't want. But overall they don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that God does not exist. Absolutely.

I don't know. I don't have this truth. Absolutely. I simply say that that book doesn't speak of God. It's all after that, God exists.

Fantastic. For me, no problem. Absolutely. I don't want say that God knows it doesn't exist because I don't know it. I don't know.

So I understand with English, we have very flat definitions of words. When there's a word, it means exactly this, I believe. And I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know. But I believe Hebrew is much more fluid and much more flexible. It's much more difficult.

So as I understand it, there's different ways to read a word. Yes, multiple ways to read a word. It's Necessary to read carefully the Context, to understand the meaning of a unique term. Because, for example, kabod means something. Evie means a person.

EVie in the sense that that person have an importance in the Society.

So means a person famous, a person of glory. So the theologians choose the term glory and always apply to the term Cabood without consider the Contest. But when we read that, the contest says that I cannot see the Cabot in front because he killed me. But when the Cabot passes, I have to be hidden by a rocks. So cannot be the glory of God because God in that case is not able to control the effects of his glory.

So it's ridiculous. So the Context says in every situation, of course, the possible real meaning of this term. So I read a book called Neuropocalypse by a guy called Reverend Danny Nemo. And he went into all of this and he talked a lot about the serpent in the Bible and how in the original Hebrew, the word for it, it says the serpent something Eve. And the translation in the Bible that we get is the serpent deceived Eve.

But the same word could also mean elevated. And there's different ways of reading the same word. And the whole Bible can be translated in a completely different way, just choosing different interpretations. Yes, but it's necessary to pay attention, to pay attention carefully to some few words. And these words are the most important.

Eloim, kabod, ruach, olam, merkava, malach. If you understand the real meaning of this term, you can read another book more fascinating than the book they narrated to us. And the serpent is one of the eloim. The interpretation of Hebrew exegetis tells that the serpent had two arms, two legs, and so he was like us. But serpent meanings, one who knows, one who have profound knowledge, okay?

Not a physical serpent, because the Hebrew says they had arms and legs. So with the case of the serpent, for example, the word could be translated as deceived or elevated, depending on your initial preconceptions and the story that you want to tell when you're the translator or whoever is the translator. So the original Bible translators had a dogma and idea, when they put it into Greek, the story they were going to tell. But other people could put it in a completely different way. Right.

There was the fathers of the church in the first centuries after Christ that said that the translation of Bible and this theological narrative was a useful misinterpretation.

So when it comes to these kind of translations, for example, with the Elohim or the serpent, deceiving or elevating, I understand that because Hebrew is a much more fluid language and you have to pay attention to context much more. You can't put a flat interpretation on a word. Is there a correct and incorrect way of translating it, or is it meant to be multilayered? Is it meant to mean both deceive and elevate? For example.

But for example, there are many translations that make not sense. I mean, for example, Ruach. But to make you understand me well, if possible, with my English, if I in English, tell spirits, I want to say an alcoholic substance, I want to say a phantasm. I want to say a characteristic of the character. I want to say, for example, a spirit of team when I'm working with the other person, and many other meanings that you surely know.

But is the context, everyone, that help us to understand the real meaning? If I say that in this house there are a spirit, a spirit that comes every night, is clearly that I am speaking about a phantasm and not about a spirit of Tim. Of course, in the Hebrew, it's the same. Okay, so it's not that there is multilayered, there is a correct and incorrect translation, but it's all about the context. Yes.

And you're saying that the traditional translation from Hebrew to Greek just got the context wrong. Yes, but between the Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, there are differences.

Also important in many case. Differences. So the hebrew community of Alexandria in Egypt had concept that didn't correspond to the thought of the Hebrew that was in Babylonia. So we can find Differences and we find Differences. Okay, so you're saying there's no God in the Bible as it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and yet the jewish people have their own Torah in Hebrew, and they're still a monotheistic people.

They still believe in one God. So if the translation is wrong, why do the Jews believe that there's one God when they have the original text? How can they interpret their own Bible wrong? How does that work? Actually, the Hebrew are monolithic.

Monolithic, not monotiste. What's the difference? They know that in the Hebrew Bible there is Yahweh, who is the Eloim, who choose them, who rules above them. And they have to have Faith in him, only in him. But the other can exist.

Do they believe that the other gods do exist, or do they believe there is only one God? There are so many currents in the Judaism that you can find every kind of thought in the Judaism you can find from atheism. From atheism, pure atheism, to the maximum of the orthodox theories. All are present. So in your translations of the Bible, your own interpretation of these different words, you've come to the conclusion that there's no God in the Bible at all.

Yes. And that there is Elohim, which are powerful people, of which Yahweh is one. And so were these people just. You were saying they were just people. They were just normal people, but they were vastly more technologically superior.

Is there any implication at all of them being a different species, perhaps alien or something like that? Or is it just straight up they're normal people who just like a lost civilization? What's your take on that? All around the world, they can be more species of humankind. And in effect, the paleoanthropologist, substantially every two, three, four months, discovers another species of ancient ancestors of the humankind.

Recently they discovered that neanderthal and homo sapiens united male and female. When before they told that was not possible.

So we must be open to all solution, because the truth can be rise every day, but we don't know when. But does your interpretation of the Bible imply that the Elohim are a different species or, like alien? Or are they exactly the same as us? Or is there no implication at all since the Elohims choose the females of the Adamites, the sons of Adam, their species, their species could be all the same or the same or very similar because they could stay together and procreate. Okay, well, these guys, these Elohim were around even during the time of Moses.

You said Moses talked to one of the Elohim when he was escaping Sinai. Yes. So why is the Bible the only account of them? Why isn't there a rich historical record of Elohim outside of the Bible? But from that time we can find the history of those beings all around the world.

What is changing is the name in Semitic, in western Semitic was Eloim. In eastern Semitic was Ilu, Ilanu. Before the Semitic the name was Anunna. In India the name is Deva. In the America, your father can tell more meter than I, than me, via Kochas and so on of the Egypt, exact in the north of Europe via Azi.

But these are very ancient accounts. These are much more ancient than the time of Moses, which I think you said was what, 1200 bc? Something like that. Or later or later. It's not true.

So is there any account of other Elohim from that period? Yes, there was the Elohim that was ruling on the land of Canaan. And Yahweh had the necessity to fight with them. And the Bible is clear in narrated these wars. Clear?

Absolutely. And sometimes Yahweh won, sometimes lose. But the Bible is clear. Are there stories of Elohim from that period, from Moses'period? Outside of the Bible?

Is there any record? For example, there is stele of Mesha, who was the king of Moabites, who tells us about a battle between Moabites and Israel, Israelites. And he says that he won against those of Yahweh. And he offered the prisoners to his Elohim named Kamosh. So this account could be brought, put in the Bible.

Nothing changed. And the king Mesha is quoted in the Bible.

So we have a double check in the same time. A double check.

Finally, if I want to read the Bible today, I can go and buy a Bible. But it's going to be the King James translation or something like that. It's going to be the standard translation that every priest will believe. Is there any way I can read a Bible as you believe to be the true translation? Does that exist anywhere?

Can I read that Bible with these translations? With these translations? I don't know if there is a Bible with these translations. So many people ask me to do a Bible with, but I have no time.

Okay.

I have no time. All right. For the next generation. Okay.

All right. Well, thank you, mab appreciate it. Thank you. To you. Thank you.

To you. Thank you.