Saturn is Tilted after Moon Smashes into it. What kind of comms is this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
There is a deep connection to Saturn in occult thinking, and the reasons for that have been carefully hidden. The odd thing is that its tilt is approximately the same as the tilts of Earth and Mars, which seems to suggest they are part of the same planetary "family." The solar system is a strange salad of improbabilities, as if its planets were assembled from afar, and we really don't know the true history of it. All we know is the official story future astrophysicists and astronomers are taught in school. But the proposition that it began as a disc of matter condensing under gravity in a smooth uneventful process of millions of years has increasingly been shown to be improbable, even physically impossible. There are myriad scientific papers raising questions about the planetary disc theory, and it's getting too difficult to sweep under the rug. Too many things don't line up to support that perspective, with more appearing all the time, and it won't be long before they will have to adjust the official story or look like fools clinging to a fairytale. Same with the Big Bang. It's going bye bye, too.
This is as much a part of the Great Awakening as the political stuff because humanity's view of the cosmos greatly affects our thinking. Big Bang cosmology presents a hopeless universe of isolation that is random and devoid of meaning, a universe in which death and loss triumphs in the end. That is being replaced by a universe of connectivity and purpose. It is the vision of a universe in which life is not a meaningless random accident, where the flow of energy constantly renews all things. It is a universe in which hope is not the prisoner of despair.
Of interest from a religious perspective is that some Christian scholars believe there is a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis (and, no, their salvation is not in danger for believing that). They propose that the Earth already existed, having already been created, but it got destroyed in a prior flood because Lucifer, who had been put in charge of managing it, rebelled and corrupted everything. Thus, they say, the 6 days of creation were really the renovation of a planet ruined by judgment that was already there. (They are not pulling this out of the air. There is some plausible scriptural support for this idea.)
References to "the purple dawn of creation" are also linked with Saturn worship, and that is interesting because there are both religious and secular sources that point to it, saying the Earth used to be different, having a pastel mauve-colored sky. In particular, some Christian prophets who say they have been shown that time have a consistent testimony about the different color of the sky, and some scientific theorists who refute the Big Bang assert the same thing, having their own theories about how that might have occurred.
Starting with the assumption that this might have some validity, I wonder if the reason Satan is so determined to secure complete control of the planet has to do with recapturing his former position. He might long for those days and resent God for handing authority over the planet to humanity instead. That authority was not given to him, so his only option is to deceive humans into handing it back over to him through rebellion, which started in the Garden of Eden and continues in people who have left the will of God to do good and walk in the truth. This is control that happens through manipulation, and it is indirect and not legitimate. Those who do Satan's will to do evil and live in a fantasy of lies effectively give him control in their sphere of influence, which is why it's so important to him to compromise the leaders of nations.
In any case, I have 100% confidence that God isn't going to let him get away with this because it is not yet time for the end. The devil is trying to make it happen sooner, but that is not allowed, and he will fail––again. They only reason why it looks so much like the "antichrist plan" is because the devil never had any other plan. What is happening from the Book of Revelation is the complete destruction of the last form of Babylon, the modern international form that rides the governments of nations to control them.
Whatever has been hidden is going to be revealed, and we are going to learn that the truth has been kept from us in every venue of human inquiry. History, science, and archeology will all seem to change, but it will really just be that the veil has been torn away.
God knows the beginning, middle and the end. Satan can try, but he will always fail, because God has already won. The global elite have been trying to speed up Tribulation, but their efforts are always going to be futile.
Such as? Is any of this evidence plausible with a purely biblical interpretation? Or does it require the inclusion/meshing of the potential lies of the world to reach such a conclusion?
It is plausible without manipulative exegesis or interpretation forced by extra-Biblical sources, and it is plausible from the original meanings of some translated words and phrases, comparing scripture with scripture where the same word or phrase is also used.
Plausible means just that, something that could fit the facts or the evidence, which in this case would arise from the meanings of words and phrases that, like in English, can have a different nuance of meaning depending upon context, or from instances where the meaning is unclear because the context doesn't provide that clarity. Plausible does not mean "true." It means having the appearance of truth or reason. This is not the same thing as a lie, and conflating the two is a mistake. We sift the things that seem true from facts or evidence to find what is actually true.
I will not debate the point in question because I am done doing other people's homework for them. If my statement bothers you, don't take my word for it. Go get your Strong's concordance and your Greek and Hebrew lexicons, then go search for the writings of those who speculate about such things to see if there can be any validity to the argument.
In any case, this is a peripheral issue that does not bring into question the validity of the word of God, and it is not a thing upon which Christians must agree in order to be saved.
I know and I agree.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before rather than just make a snap judgement, call it false, and move on. I certainly didn't intend to insinuate anything else if that's how it came off.
I apologize for my tone. It was reactive and unfair. Not to excuse myself, but it's because I've had unpleasant encounters with other people who only seemed to want to pick apart everything I said. Those exchanges had the character of an attack rather than a discussion, and I was expecting the harsh judgment of an ossified religious mind. I do appreciate you taking the time to make such a thoughtful reply. Thank you for that.
I understand not wanting to trust an unsubstantiated claim. I wouldn't want you to. It seems that you have already looked into it, so I will only say that I didn't mention the possible gap between Genesis 1 & 2 out of any support for Darwinian evolution, which I don't believe in at all.
As far as what theologians have understood throughout time, for hundreds of years theologians believed the entire universe revolved around the earth. This view was based upon their understanding of scripture, which they thought supported the cosmology of Ptolemy. It wasn't until Galileo started looking through a telescope that any of that changed. Agreement does not equal truth. People in charge who agree about a thing can be wrong, and that is likely when they think they must defend what they believe by persecuting dissenters, which they did to Galileo.
As for understanding the scriptures, what we get wrong is not to be conflated with God getting it wrong or being deficient in His power to preserve truth. The scriptures themselves declare that God hides truth, which seems to have the purpose of getting us to make an investment of effort in searching it out. They even says He seals up the revelation of the meaning of prophecy until His own appointed times. (If you want me give you chapters and verses, I will get back to you about that after the hurricane.)
In reference to the edit, I think the fault was mine. It was in what I had inferred.
Pretty sure the plausible evidence is the literal interpretation of the original Aramaic
Look up Mauro Biglino
https://en.difesaonline.it/evidenza/recensioni/intervista-mauro-biglino-la-bibbia-non-parla-di-dio
None of this is compatible with Christianity as we know it today. Being wholly incompatible with Christianity as we know it means that there's no basis to claim that believing this stuff in no way affects your salvation. As such, you and the other guy are not talking about the same thing.
Also, this guy is a complete crackpot at best and looking to intentionally deceive at worst.
The whole point of what Mauro Biglino is bringing up is of course not compatible with Christianity for most Christians. But if you do not contemplate that religion and Christianity in particular is a limited hangout to control the masses, then are you really searching for truth? When you also find out that the story of Jesus follows, if not outright mirrors, other older stories from other religions/cults then it is not all that hard to lay down your ego and realize what could be afoot. Even within the Q movement we need to be able to reconcile that making it Christian based could be part of making it more energizing towards the religious community and the societal good things that come with revival; Biblical could be synonymous with archetypal at the end of the day despite deeply held connotations and beliefs when you look at things from the 40,000 ft view
I have only looked into Mauro Biglino enough to get the alternate verison of Genesis so I am not aware of how he translates the new testament, if he even does. So I am not sure where your argument would even begin that it is not compatible with Christianity.
What thread I did share with the other guy for sure is that Biglino's interpretation of the OT is that the earth did exist before Adam and Eve and was populated but wiped out in a flood akin to what happened to Noah. This is interesting to me because the cyclical destructions evident in our geologic record both confirm Noah's flood AND a flood before Adam and Eve. Mainstream science even teaches these while ignoring the fact that the Noah timeline lines up with the end of the ice age / Younger Dyas extinction event. The geologic record further shows cyclical catastrophes before these two events. To add to this, we have enough to know from ancient sites like the serpent mounds in the US that there were civilizations either far enough back in time that they were aligning their sites to a different overhead celestial alignment than we see today and/or polar shifts cause crustal slippage over the mantle and areas can wind up on vastly different points of the globe; either way indicates that the earth was tilted or laid out differently due to some kind of cyclical cataclysm which lines up with stories in basically every ancient culture. Graham Hancock is the main source on these ideas that supposedly prove humans have been around for at least 100,000 years or more, and his archeological research credentials sure dwarf mine.
How do you know Biglino is either a crackpot or intentionally deceiving? That sounds like opinion with no facts to back it up. If you could point out some specifics as to why you believe this then this could help both of us figure things out, but if you just feel that this is the case and I should acquiesce to your beliefs then what are we really doing here?
Before you treat me as if I am telling you all facts, please realize that everything is ideas and that just cause the ideas I consider in pursuit of truth are different from yours does not mean I am inherently wrong or lacking equally factual sources.