Gods of the Bible Graham Hancock talks with Mauro Biglino

Show video

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, anything else? We have the Ruach.  That's the rising up? Yes.  The flying. Yes, the ruach.  So some sort of suggestion of a flying machine? Yes, yes, flying machine  They are described clearly as flying machines Sorry- in the Bible? In the Bible. Give me an example.

For example in the Book   of Ezekiel, and in the book of Exodus, the kavod of Yahweh is clearly described, that when Moses asked Yahweh for  the possibility to see his kavod  and Yahweh told him "you cannot stay in front of kavod because  if you are in front of kavod you will die" and -this is important-  Yahweh can not do anything, so God is impotent, not potent, in front of the danger of the kavod and this is very interesting- Yahweh tells Moses "you can hide behind these rocks" so the rocks can do what God cannot do  right I absolutely get your point  Impressive very much so So Mauro, 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 talked about the the Bible  normally we talk about the Old Testament May I just 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 Masoretic version of the Old Testament that is the official version we have the Old Testament of the Samaritans  which contains 300 differences  from the Masoretic Old Testament we have the Old Testament in  the Dead Sea Scrolls that have,   for example, only in the book  of Isaiah 250 differences so we have many Old Testaments  but the theologians say that the true Old Testament is the Masoretic version okay explain Masoretic to me Masoretic is a family, named  also the School of Tiberias,  that worked on their version of the Old Testament  between the 6th and 9th century after Christ and they added the vowels because the Old Testament   was written only by consonants so the people could read it however they wanted to They could insert whichever vowels they wished to- exactly. So the Masoretic School inserted the vowels to fix down the  possible ways of reading the Old Testament and I translated this not because  I think it's the best version,   or the unique truth, but because  the theologians say it is the truth this is the definitive version the definitive, yes. first of all with our friends I  apologise for my English but I'm   learning it since a few months, and  so I hope to make you understand me you're certainly making 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 and 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 differences  which are often important and so when we are in front of this book,  we have to take care with the context because the translation of a  unique term is always uncertain it is uncertain even if all the scholars of  the world say that "this is the translation" it is not certain they're using their authority okay, they use their authority because  often they are dogmatic of course so we have to use the context to  understand the real meaning of single terms like the the verb 'bara' which is present  in the first verse of the Bible in Genesis so the term 'Shaddai', that  doesn't mean "Almighty"  but it means "lord of the mountains", "lord of the steppe" but in the Bible you always  find the translation "Almighty" but they know it's not "Almighty" because for example in the Bible of  Jerusalem in the notes they write that  the translation "Almighty" is a mistake but since God must be in the Bible,  and God must be Almighty, so they insert the term "Almighty" also they know that 'Shaddai'  doesn't mean "Almighty" but to be clear in the original Hebrew, if somebody is a Hebrew speaker   and understands Hebrew clearly, 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. What is your special qualification to  translate and to comment on biblical texts?

I studied Hebrew with the Hebrew community  of Turin. Later I started to translate What led you to start learning Hebrew? for my interest, for my personal passion Like you I wanted to understand the truth,  because I know Latin, Greek, Ancient Hebrew and so I wanted to know what is really  written in this so-called holy book and after I started to translate for  myself, the Publishing House San Paulo,   which is the main important Catholic  Publishing House of the Vatican,   saw my translation and then they  asked me to translate for them I see and I translated 70 books of the Old Testament and  they published them exactly as I translated them you were translating into  Italian or into which language? into Italian yeah but when I was translating for them, for example the term Elohim was not translated It remained Elohim because in the world nobody knows  the real meaning of the term Elohim  so it is better not translated but to leave it as it is exactly so that's a transliteration that we're looking at yes in my contract they wrote that  I must make a literal translation so terms such as Shaddai, and  Elohim 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 house  San Paulo for the Vatican, yes and how is the relationship  between you and the Vatican? when I started to explain to  the public the real meanings and when in 2010 I started to write  my first book about the literal   translations of the Bible I was fired in one minute It's dynamite, a very explosive subject it's all finished so you had a temporary connection with the Vatican yes and that resulted in the translation of 70 books yes, after they published  these 70 books with my name and they're still they're still in print? they now changed my name  they made a revision of this book to  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, the translation? oh yes a great problem, but in 2016 I organized a  meeting with four of the main theologians in Italy  one Catholic (all academics), an  archbishop of the Orthodox Church, a   Rabbi chief of the Hebrew community, and the  most important biblical translator Protestant we met in front of 600 people they had to admit in front of  these people that in the Bible   there is no concept of creation from 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 there and I thought to myself  that they are saying what I say normally yeah let's dig deeper into this question  of El and Elohim, and Yahweh or YHVH if I understand YHVH it's supposed to mean "I am  that I am" or "I am what I am", is that incorrect? no, it's not it's not correct because nobody  knows the real meaning of the tetragrammaton because when it was pronounced  the Hebrew language did not exist so nobody knows in what  language it was proncounced 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? yes 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 the opinion of other scholars, 500BC 5th Century BC, so much later,  so there is some argument about when- yes but nobody is sure about this- ok but when did the Hebrew  language come into existence? in that moment Aramaic was the  international language, as with English now but we don't know in what language  the so-called Yahweh spoke,   but for example we do know that  the vowels of Yahweh were inserted two thousand years after their first pronunciation so nobody knows so the real sound of this name if we accept the early date for Moses, 1200 BC,   you're saying that the language that  Moses spoke could not have been Hebrew no the language- could have been ancient Egyptian yes, perfect it could have been ancient Egyptian is it controversial to say that the  Hebrew language did not exist in 1200 BC? in that time a form of language started to exist  which is defined as 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 YHVW, or Yahweh, we  don't know what language he spoke to Moses in then 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 yes they don't use vowels so YHVH are all consonants and we don't  know what the vowels are in between no we don't know we don't know. The vowels started   to be written between the sixth  and the ninth century after Christ right so that's when- sorry for the English no problem, so this is an interpretation in the Hebrew text that is put upon those consonants YHVH and generally it's interpreted as God. Now what about El and Elohim? 

And how do they relate to Yahweh, or YHVW? El could be, but it's not sure, El could be  the singular of Elohim, but it's not sure El and Elohim could be two independent terms and the singular of Elohim could be Eloah that corresponds to Allah in the  Semitic-Oriental, Eastern Semitic I'm thinking of places in in  Israel like Bethlehem, Bethel Bethel means the house of El- house of God, house of El which is often translated as the house of God yes but you're saying that there's no  legitimacy to that translation? no absolutely not but, excuse me it's okay but I am sure of that not because I know of  the real translation of the term El or Elohim but because nobody knows the translation, first and second if we read what is really  written in the Bible everyone would understand that El and  Elohim and Eloah doesn't mean God can't mean God! Can't mean and would would any modern day Hebrew speaker  and Hebrew expert agree with you on that? yes so how do they- my manager is studying Hebrew  with the University of Jerusalem and they hear from her teachers  translations that are similar to mine 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 Judaisms but there are many Christianities too, but  they are they all share the view that there's-   they're monotheistic religions as indeed is Islam; they would define themselves as monotheists yes, but there are many important Hebrew exegesis' that clearly state that El,   Elohim, Eloah, and Yahweh, do  not 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 the Elohim were a superior civilization that  divided the various population into kin-groups right. The populations of the whole  earth, or just the Middle East? of the whole earth okay 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 the other families of Hebrews like  the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites ,etc were assigned to other Elohims  that the Bible names clearly Dagon and Ashera I recognise as  Canaanite, or so-called Philistine deities yes 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? Elohim. Always Elohim but the theologians say that those  Elohim did not exist, and were only idols I understand Dagon and Ashera  being referred to as idols,   but the word Elohim is also, according to  you, wrongly translated as the one God? yes it's a wrong translation so Elohim refers to a multiplicity of- yes to a multiplicity of gods  certainly, yes absolutely I wanted to reduce the number of the Elohim  present in the Bible. I reached the number of 23 

right  23 yes but I reduced okay the number of Elohim  present in the Bible, so there are no doubts how did you reduce it? by reading and translating the Bible  and finding names which corresponded   to the writings of the peoples that  fought with the people of Israel but those peoples are of  the same family of Abraham and in their scripts they named  clearly the names of their Elohims and the name of their Elohims  are present in the Bible,  for example in the Book of Judges,  Chemosh is named as the god of the Moabites there is a stone of the Moabites in which it's written that they fought  with Israelites and they won and they won against the people of Yahweh  and they were ruled by their Elohim so you're seeing these Elohim 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 a higher civilization that could survive the great flood okay we'll come to that, but 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 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   asked that Elohim "who are you?" because he wanted to be sure   with whom he was speaking okay because he didn't know 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 is 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, absolutely 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? yeah in the Bible in the time of the Exile at the time of the Ex- in Babylonia in Babylonia right because before that, they weren't  conscious of the existence of many Elohims  yes clearly in the Bible what I wonder is if this Elohim  idea is correct, and that we have a   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? Moses leads the children of Israel out  of Egypt, we are 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 Elohim looking after them? The Egyptians had- What about Mesopotamia? had the Elohim - they didn't call them Elohim  of course because it was another language but I think they were the same in Hebrew it was "Elohim" in Mesopotamia it was "ilu" or "ilanu"  in Egypt it was another name yeah, but the same function yes the same function, the same characteristics- so to cut a long story short, do you  interpret these entities as human beings   or? yes 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 I can see the crossover with- it's absolutely possible that Elohim were those human beings with special knowledge yes of higher technology now the thing is that we have a very long gap- if we agree on the flood, which is  a 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 the 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,   and it runs roughly for 1,200 years from  12,800 years ago to 11,600 years ago 11,600 years ago we get a final massive pulse of melt water which raises sea levels very, very rapidly it's one of the reasons why I'm interested  in the story of Atlantis actually, because   that that is the date- 11,600 years before our  time, 9,000 years before the time of Solon is   the date that Plato gives for  the submergence of Atlantis so if these calculations are correct  and we're looking at 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, 3,200 years ago so we have about 8,000 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 8,000 years preserved this raises- it's absolutely possible, yes so talk to me about why it's possible yes, because also in the Egyptian culture I  read that the Phoenician priest Sanchuniathon,   who wrote, and Eusebius of  Caesarea reported his words and he said that the priests of ancient Egypt   uncovered, hidden in 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 Pe and Nekhen,   and they were also related to another  group called The Followers of Horus  and their specific purpose, as described in the   ancient Egyptian text, was to transmit  knowledge from the past into the future  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 8,000 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 do you accept the  notion of a flood more than 11,000 years ago? yes 12-11,000 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 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 Nicolaus of Damascus   wrote in his books that when Noah arrived on top  of this mountain, he found there other people ah interesting he found other people and these people were afraid to descend and Noah with his sons convinced them to descend but this is not in the Bible? This  is this is in some other text? this is in the text of Nicolaus of Damascus first century before Christ right, so it's an exegesis on the Bible yes 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 old Karahan Tepe is 11,600 years old Gobekli Tepe is another proof  of a higher 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 the thought that knowledge could be preserved  within select groups and passed down to the future for that to happen for 8,000 years is something  that many skeptics find very difficult to accept yes I think that history must  be rewritten, absolutely,   because there are too many things that  the history is not able to explain let's consider technology. As you know,  my background was in journalism 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 of some kind  it's very hard it's very hard  to interpret it in any other way what do you think the Ark of the Covenant was? I think it's what is written  in the Bible could be true  because the The Ark is defined as an object  that produced or contained some form of energy  and was also an instrument for  the communication between Moses,   or the people of Israel, with  their Elohim, named Yahweh I may say- mistranslated in the movie Raiders  of the Lost Ark as "a radio for talking to God" talking to God, talking to Yahweh 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 contain always   the truth, but not only The same is true for the books  of History written today,   also the the books written about the WWII, etc and so it's the same, it's the same mystery 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 kavod kavod is always translated as Glory of Yahweh but in the Book of Ezekiel   there are some clear translations that can allow  us to think that it was a technological tool in one Italian translation San Paulo Editions it's written that Ezekiel hears  the sound produced by kavod which was behind him when this kavod was arising from the earth and it is translated in this  way in the San Paulo Bible and the exact translation of the Hebrew term  that is not Baruch (בָּרוּךְ) but is Berun What happened to kavod? Berun 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 technological yes what do you make of the Tower of Babel? oh it's a very interesting topic because the  narration of the Tower of Babel is very strange  because those people wanted to reach the sky so Yahweh wanted to intervene to destroy it and after the Bible says  that Yahweh divided languages but if you read carefully the  previous chapters of the Bible,   you read that the languages were already divided each people had their own language so when Yahweh destroyed this tower and  divided this alliance, he distributed   these people among the others so he didn't create a new language, because  the diverse languages already existed it's clearly written in the Bible clearly and yet not made available  to us who don't speak Hebrew,   because the translation  distorts the information yes because the Hebrew Bible was written,   or first some parts were written  after the Exile of Babylonia and so we cannot be sure and after all the new writers wrote  what they wanted to tell to people and they created monotheism okay so in summary in your view monotheism  is not a natural outcome of the Bible;   it's a deliberate man-made strategy yes in the Bible there was a monolatry monolatry, worshipping one idol they served one of many  Elohims, just as others did every peoples had one or many Elohim let's consider these Elohim, and  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 a protestant pastor Barry  Downing wrote in his books that Elohims 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 absolutely not God were they - okay they were not God  - were they good? Or were they evil? they are like humans both good and evil the definition depends on the position because you know, the adversary defines the devil The devil is defined by the adversary, always there's a controversial view of the  encounters with entities in the Bible I know quite well, although I  have not seen him for some years,   Professor Benny Shanon from the  Hebrew University in Jerusalem Benny Shanon is one of the world experts on the  visionary brew of the Amazon called Ayahuasca 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 Benny Shnnon  was suggesting that Moses was on Ayahuasca it's possible! that he was having that he was  having a visionary experience  that many of these- 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 people had  visions of entities and encounters of course it's possible but I  wanted to tell you another thing- the term in Hebrew translated with "bush"  is present also in other parts 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 rocky mountain and in effect in reality in other parts of  the Bible it is translated as "rocky mountain" so we can think that it was not a bush   on fire but this fire was on a rocky  mountain where there was the kavod of Yahweh this glowing burning energy with sound so, since we know that in that region  where many archaeologists found,   for example, the 12 Stones cited in the Bible, etc in those stones there is  some substance like petrol so when the kavod of Yahweh is over the Earth it could provoke fire it could create fire, yeah so we are not sure if this term  means "bush" or "rocky mountain"  we are not sure and my system is to always have an  open mind to all possible solutions I think that's a good system, especially when  we're dealing with a document that is quite old so difficult to understand and is very difficult to understand,   and has been through already multiple changes  of language which causes further problems we cannot always be 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,   and been responsible for many of the problems  in the world certainly in the last 2000 years because in my translation I'm  using several dictionaries theological and non-theological  dictionaries for the 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 the Book of Revelation is a book  written in a sort of codex for the church,   the many churches that were arising in that  time, so to hide their words from the powers   of the time, like the Roman Empire, etc, and I  think it's a book written in code for that time what about the prediction of the end of the world? I tend not to believe in prophecies I think because I think you're very wise because for example all the prophecies  written in the Bible, all the prophecies,   were written after the fact after, always after after rather than before always so they're the opposite of prophecies okay so what we were saying what we were saying was  that the 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 but do you prefer-  your conclusion is we're  talking about human beings? they are the same because I'm interested I'm  interested in their vices  human beings have vices.  Did they Elohim have vices? Yahweh wanted to have, every day,   from 2 to 5 liters -because I don't know how many gallons- of shakar that was an alcoholic drink where is this stated? Is this stated in the Bible? it is stated in the Bible, in the Torah and every day he wanted  also the smoke of burnt meat because for example in the  Book of Numbers Chapter 28 this smoke that he wanted to  smell was able to calm him yes I remember that passage absolutely, so it's possible that- and in this smoke there are some molecules that are similar to endorphin molecules I don't know how to say endorphins, yeah endorphins that our brain produces when we are in   a state of stress right and in the Book of Numbers, Yahweh says several  times that this smoke calmes you he says this smoke calms me,  because these smoke calmes me several times 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 interesting but it's clear-  it's not my translation,  it's the normal translation it sounds more like a human being, and the needs,  and wishes, and weaknesses of a human being 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 doesn't say where they come  from and so I don't speculate on that but in Psalm 24 it is written that Yahweh  with his kavod, were passing through a gate   that opened after an order and opened le-olam i.e. from an "unknown place"

so it's the most important  passage of the Bible, Psalm 24 and this Psalm 24 was used also by  Monsignor Corrado Balducci, of the Vatican who said- because now he is dead who said that the two first verses  of this Psalm contain the proof that   the Bible knew of the existence  of the inhabitants of the earth,   and the inhabitants of the universe,  and that they were different and the last verses of that Psalm talk  about this passage through the gates and in the English Bibles the terms in Hebrew pitraim (פִּתְחֵים) and   sharim (שְׁעָרִים) are translated  by Hebrew translators as "gates" so we may only speculate yes, but I stop at the literal  translation of the Bible because beyond this translation  we have to speculate indeed so but I prefer for now to stick to the to  the literal translation of the Hebrew Bible The 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 a worm oh yes there is also the Shamir it sounds also technological can you talk a little bit about that? yes the Shamir is a an object that is  very difficult to explain because it   is referenced only one or two times in the Bible but it must really be something technological but I want to avoid a work of  fantasy, and so I prefer to be silent you don't want fantasy, 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, anything else? we have the ruach that's the rising up? yes  the flying yes, the ruach so some sort of suggestion of a flying machine? yes, a flying machine they are described clearly as flying machines Sorry, in the Bible? In the Bible. Give me an example for example in the Book of  Ezekiel, and in the book of Exodus in the book of Exodus the kavod  of Yahweh is clearly described that when Moses asked Yahweh of  the possibility to see this kavod 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- and so Yahweh cannot do anything about it so God is impotent, not potent, in  front of the of the danger of the kavod and, this is very interesting- Yahweh tells Moses "you can hide yourself behind these rocks" so the rocks can do what God cannot do I absolutely get your point Impressive  Yes, very much so when when you were a journalist for The Economist  you encountered the Ark of the Covenant? 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 1980's I didn't have any particular interest in  history, or in pre-history, or in archeology 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 were 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 Beta  Israel, the House of Israel  they are known in Ethiopia as the Falashas and they practice a very ancient  form of Judaism they do not 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 epic tells the Ethiopian National epic is called  the Kebra Nagast, "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, it 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 Kebra Nagast and he carried it off to Ethiopia and we are told in the Kebra  Nagast 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 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 Elephantine 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 say a little thing? yes The Hebrew of Elephantine knew the wife of Yahweh they knew the wife of Yahweh! so they were  really another kind of Jewish religion indeed so here we come to the interesting  point where history connects with   this story because that Jewish temple  on the island of Elephantine 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 searched the Bible for an explanation  for the construction of the temple,  the only explanation I find is as a 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 Elephantine is dedicated to   the Egyptian god Khnum, and  Khnum is a ram-headed deity so the tension was caused by the  sacrifice of rams that was taking place so the Falashas 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, which is the source of the Blue Nile and suddenly I could see how this story made sense  because how do you get the 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 the Falashas 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 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, 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 they are not interested in myths,  in traditions, any such thing  they just they just dismiss it and in the process of doing so,   as we say in English, they are throwing  out the baby with the bath water  they're missing important things in  their desperate effort to be scientists 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 doing and often I think many mysteries  are explained away too simply yeah, that's right, far too simple too simply of a way yeah, definitely but I think that your journey in  Ethiopia was a great gift for us all thank you absolutely a great gift for us all thank you, it was an amazing adventure  for me and it 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 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 we must have a diversity of views,  we must be open to all of them  and this is the main problem  I have with archeology I would like if you would talk about your series  Ancient Apocalypse that I of course so totally- thank you as I read your books, because I wanted  that the friends of my Mauro Biglino   official channel can hear you directly from  you about your extraordinary experience it certainly was a breakthrough for me you know 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 but with a television program it's more  difficult to make that convincing case 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 and the positive side of   it is that it reaches a huge number  of people which a book would not do several millions 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 and 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 archeology 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 archeology the whole teaching of history and prehistory  in schools in universities is all based on the   opinions of archaeologists I say opinions, not facts It's based on the opinions of archaeologists  and they certainly do not invite me to appear   on programs about their work  to provide a counterbalance so my view was that this in making this  series I was providing a counterbalance   to the over dominant position that  archaeological opinion occupies that   it's that it's essential that that be questioned because archeology is not physics  there's a difference between  physics and archeology physics I accept is a hard science archeology is not a hard science and the further back you go into  the past, the more archeology is   based on interpretation of very  minimal numbers of artifacts so really with archeology what we have  is the opinion of a group of scholars,   and 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 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 that there should be no place for Dogma in science as I say archeology the claim of archeology  to be a science at all is very flimsy I don't think archeology  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 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  waste 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 to be questioned, because they have the truth many archaeologists asked actually  why my series was even allowed,  it should never have been given  permission to be shown in their view 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 what a huge role what is interesting is that the  Bible confirms your theories also though the Bible is only one of  the books written in human history and the Bible is the book of just one people exactly only one little- the family of  Jacob, not of all the Hebrews just the family of Jacob, but in any case the Bible, the contents  of the Bible, confirms your theories give me some ideas about why.  Why does it confirm my theories? of course because the Bible speaks clearly  about the Elohims that have a technology   absolutely superior to humankind of this time of that time  and so it's clear, there is no  discussion, only the dogmatics can- so it's a record of   communication between a people who had advanced  technology and a people who did not yes an archbishop 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 can't  tell others because the system would kill me" well indeed the system did  used to kill people literally  oh yes the Roman Catholic Church- I received a bullet oh really? yes  tell me more many years ago  you received a bullet a bullet, a military bullet and that's a threat to you yes, with a letter in which was written that if I were to continue to make conferences I made 300 conferences in Italy, Germany,  France, Portugal, Croatia, Switzerland if I had continued they had the necessity  to kill me or to kill one of my family but luckily nothing happened but the threat is there, and the days  of Giordano Bruno are not over then? okay, fortunately we are living in other times yeah fortunately we are, but  those times are relatively recent  when when the church was capable of burning people  at the stake, in extremely painful and awful ways I find a great deal of hypocrisy  in the church in this matter I draw your attention particularly to the  Spanish conquest of Mexico 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- but also Yahweh asked for human sacrifice of child  tell me more, I didn't know that,  please talk to me some more about that in the book of Jeremiah it says that he had the necessity to request these human  sacrifices 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?  yes He instructs Isaac to sacrifice  his son and then changes his mind   at the last minute very cruel behavior it was normal, and Abraham accepted it as normal,  because Yahweh wanted to test the fate of Abraham and when he saw that Abraham was disposed  to give his son in sacrifice, Yahweh sent a   so-called angel  in Hebrew "malach" that means "messenger" to stop it because Yahweh saw that Abraham was able  to kill his son to demonstrate his faith,  his availability to obey orders of Yahweh it was normal, absolutely normal so very cruel and obnoxious behavior absolutely Yahweh didn't accept criticism absolutely so he can not 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 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 this- I don't say that God does not exist 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 Elohim, and the Bible  is the history of the relationship   between Yahweh - one of  the Elohim - and one people because Yahweh didn't - he didn't much care about others  no, the others did not exist for him, or if they  didn't want to submit, they must be exterminated the Bible is this book, nothing else 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, and the English- Elisabetta it's ready? next month next month and its title is? 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've talked a  lot about the Elohim but what's the   orthodox understanding of what the Elohim are? what the most people assume they are? are they   angels? are they different from angels?  what's the normal explanation for them? they believe what the the Catholic Church believes 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 a Greek Bible,  not to the Hebrew Bible okay 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 as a separate beings? no, Elohim is always translated as "God" "Elohim" in Greek is "Theos" "Elohim" in Hebrew, "Theos" in  Greek, "God" in modern translations when I had this meeting with those  four important theologians all four 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 so they said there's no one God in the  Bible? Those people agreed with you,   is that what you're saying? many people more and more and more in less than three years in my channel we have almost 25  million 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 Vatican? the majority of priests  don't want to hear my words because often they are in crisis,  because they don't know how  to how to answer my questions because I read I read in front of them and I say "explain to me what is written here" and they- okay but there's a body of biblical scholars  that around the world who would say that- and also the entire church system would say that  there is one God, and he is described in the Bible now that's been that way for  two thousand 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've studied the Bible and said- first of all you must not believe me you have to control in Hebrew what  I say in Italian or in English that's all you must not believe me, absolutely in my books not in that one because it's an interview I always, always write the verse in Hebrew,  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? because they don't want to hear what I'm saying  because they are grateful for their faith it's necessary for them, for a human brain it's necessary many scientists studied these  questions and they wrote that God is- the image of God is inherent in the brain,   and so it's easier to believe in God than not 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 that's all beyond that if God exists, fantastic! for me no problem, absolutely I don't want to say that God  doesn't exist because I don't know  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 carefully read the context  to understand the meaning of a unique term because for example, "kavod" means "something heavy" meaning "a person of weight" in the sense that  that person has an importance in the society it also means "a famous  person", a "person of glory" so the theologians   chose the term "glory" and always apply it to  the term kavod without considering the context but when we read that the context says that "I cannot see the kavod in front of me   because it will kill me" "but when the kavod passes   I have to be hidden behind rocks" so it 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 implies, in every situation,  the possible real meaning of this term so I read a book called Neuro-Apocalypse  by a guy called Reverend Danny Nemu,   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 says "the serpent <something> Eve" and the tran

2023-04-14

Show video