The Alternative Genesis

Life exists and the fact that life exist means there has to be a beginning, a change from a time before life existed to a time after life came to exist. This point, with or without any religious connotation, can be called, Genesis.

However, the conundrum is how life came to exist and while there seems to be a wide variety of potential answers, it boils down to a choice of three.

Answer 1: Is that God created.

Answer 2: Is that life evolved.

Answer 3: Is the alien intervention.

In discussing this subject, the usual stance is to choose one of the above three and propose a variation to the theme. It is also common to follow an either or pattern to that proposal, either creation or evolution and never the two shall meet, except on the subject of alien intervention.

Alien intervention theories follow two main patterns. The first is to propose that the gods described in the various creation stories from around the world were in fact alien visitors and for whatever reason, created mankind.

It has to be admitted that the various creation stories, including the bible Genesis, have enough holes in them to dismiss creation as a viable idea.

Alternatively, alien intervention theories are used to fill some of the equally large holes in the Theory of Evolution. Despite evolutionists claiming they have it all worked out their ideas, when put under scientific scrutiny, are shown to be largely based on conjecture and guesswork with very little scientific fact to back them up.

So now you might think I’m going to propose another alien intervention variation, but I won’t. In fact, alien intervention is going to be the first one to strike off. The reason is simple.

There is not one single alien intervention that answers the question of how life began. This isn’t to say that life cannot exist on other planets, even intelligent life. It is saying that even if they do, they do not answer the question of how life began and therefore, or not the gods of creation nor the early alien scientists that manipulated life on Earth over the hurdles evolution can’t explain.

Alien intervention does not answer the question. It simply moves the question back one step. How did this alien life come to exist? Did it evolve, or was it created? Exactly the same question as before.

So this is going to be a series of hubs showing why the accepted ideas of evolution don’t work and why the accepted ideas of creation don’t work and then propose an answer which is a complete, alternative Genesis.

Charles Darwin, considered to be the father of evolution, did not, in his original thesis, propose that life simply evolved. He described a process of natural selection in which species developed in various ways dependant on the location and availability of food wherever they lived. This process took place after the original act of creation. In his conclusion to the Origin of the Species, he wrote of, ‘the grandeur of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.’

In other words, the original animal was created and then, over time, developed through a process of natural selection into the modern day zoological categorisation of animals into families. Only later did the theory develop into one where all life evolved from the very beginning by chance.

To explain how, Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, proposed that the atmosphere of the early earth was made up of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through the energy supplied by the sun and bolts of lightning, these compounds were broken apart and reformed into amino acids. Over time a quantity of these accumulated in a primordial ocean to form protein like compounds. This primordial ocean gradually developed into to an organic soup in which evolution could take place.

The organic soup theory states that by pure chance a remarkable molecule with the ability to reproduce itself was formed. Similar molecules then clustered together and then again, by an equally improbably accident, wrapped a protective membrane of different protein molecules around themselves. Thus the first living cell came into existence.

Dawkins himself admits that while such events are exceedingly improbable, it must have happened this way.

The only reason it must have happened this way because the only alternative is creation and creation requires belief in something called God. This raises the question whether this is a serious scientific explanation for how life came to exist or simply a method by which the writer can challenge the existence of God. It should be noted that Dawkins himself writes in the preface of his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”

Thus Professor William Thorpe, Professor of Animal Ethology at the zoology department of Cambridge University, described much of this speculation as, simple minded, facile and carrying little weight. Further scientific examination also discredits the ‘organic soup’ element of evolutionary theory as just this.

Experiments have proven that the same solar energy required to form basic amino acids would even more quickly decompose those amino acids. In experiments, any amino acids created under the supposed oxygen free conditions required by the theory, have only been saved because the scientists conducting these experiments immediately removed them from the conditions in which they were created.

This would not be possible in earth’s pre-life atmosphere, but just suppose some amino acids did survive the destructive ultra-violet radiation of the sun and reach the ocean. Not only would they then be cut off from the solar energy required to promote further development, but water itself is known to inhibit any such growth. For an amino acid in water to develop, it must get out of the water, but if it gets out of the water it will be destroyed by solar radiation.

In addition, the Organic Soup Theory requires 20 amino acids to form, by chance, in totally hostile conditions. Once formed they then need to combine before molecular development can take place,

Chemist Richard Dickenson stated: “It is hard to see how polymerisation [the linking of smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favours de-polymerisation [the breaking up of larger molecules into smaller ones] rather than polymerisation.”

In simple terms any molecules that did form, would be broken down if they remained in water.

To make it even more complicated, for these proteins to then evolve into self reproducing cell, it would require some proteins serve as structural material, some to serve as enzymes, in fact a so called simple cell requires 2,000 proteins to serve as enzymes without which it would die.

In science, not everything can be proven 100%. Theories are allowed a certain level of chance, like gambling odds and as in horse racing, the longer the odds the less the chance of winning. In science, odds of above a 1 in ¹⁰⁄₅₀ chance is dismissed as impossible. This is odds of 1 in 1 followed by 50 zeros. The odds given for a single protein molecule to form at random in the known conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere is given as a 1 in ¹⁰⁄₁₁₃. This is a probability rating equal to one against the estimated total of atoms in the universe. The chances of a single cell developing by chance are given as one in ¹⁰⁄₄₀₀₀₀, a probability so small that it is considered impossible even if the whole universe consisted of an organic soup.

Note that these odds vary depending on the scientific group consulted, but they still remain beyond impossible and to add to problem:

Just as all life is covered by a protective membrane, so too the so called simple cell. This is made up of a complex mixture of protein, sugar and fat molecules. This membrane must also possess channels that allow the influx of nutrients and the efflux of waste. These channels are made up of highly specific proteins that could not have existed during the evolutionary period proposed. In fact the so called simple cell in the organic soup theory is no such thing. A single cell is an extremely complex structure requiring the same balance of elements as any other life form, the right conditions, the ability to digest nutrition and the ability to reproduce. To call it a simple cell is to hide the problems.

Though perhaps the greatest challenge to the Organic Soup theory of how life began comes from evolutionists themselves. While many still publicly proclaim that life crawled from some primordial ocean, others continue to investigate and look for an alternative explanation.

One such idea is the theory of Panspermia. This is that the original seeds of life, either in the form of amino acids, or proteins, or even in cellular form, were seeded from space and arrived carried on asteroids and/or meteorites that struck the primordial Earth during the early development of the universe.

Panspermia has yet to explain how these amino acids, proteins or early cells developed in the vacuum of space. Nor how they survived the immense friction during entry through the atmosphere let alone impact with the Earth.

The question is, if it is a proven scientific fact that life came to exist in some organic soup, as we are continually told, then why would scientists still be looking for an alternative explanation?

There is a set method for proving any scientific theory. First, a list of expectations is created. Evidence is then gathered and compared against this list of expectations. If the evidence meets the list of expectations, then the theory is valid. Here is a very basic list of expectations for the Theory of Evolution.

(1) Very simple life forms appear gradually.

(2) These simple forms reveal gradual development into more complex life forms.

(3) Numerous examples of the necessary transitional links between one form and another should be revealed.

(4) Evidence should be found showing examples of the gradual development of new body features such as limbs, bones and organs.

The evidence comes from the fossil record held up by evolutionists to support their theory. Conclusions from this evidence is that:-

(1) Complex life forms appear suddenly. There are no simple forms and even the earliest exist as complex forms in their own right.

(2) Complex life forms multiply within their specific family or biological kind rather than developing from one to another. There is no evidence of gradual development.

(3) There are no transitional links between different biological families. In fact, modern biological examination has proven the genetic impossibility of interbreeding between animal kinds.

(4) There is no evidence of partial or developing body features. All species appear complete with no evidence of evolutionary development.

In conclusion: One species may be replaced by another but there is no evidence that one developed into the other. The differences are often so great as to discount any possibility that this may have been the case.

This however, does not indicate support for the creation story because evidence comparison with creation expectations still does not fit.

Cosmologists and physicists have, in their attempts to explain how the universe began, made some very interesting discoveries. Computer modelling exercises have revealed that very small changes in the initial conditions during the creation of the universe would bring about vastly different conclusions. These conditions are exacting enough to be extremely difficult to explain, a situation corresponding to Chaos Theory, sometimes called the Butterfly Effect, in which the beating wings of a butterfly on one side of the world will change conditions on the other.

The fields of cosmology, quantum and particle physics have also come up with some interesting conclusions. These predict the existence of Dark Matter and even Dark Energy, without which the universe simply could not exist. There is also the proposal, in particle physics, that there may be only one particular particle, sometimes called the God particle, and that this exists everywhere and in everything at exactly the same time.

Not being a particle physicist and feeling totally out of my depth at the extent of their conclusion, I do not challenge or doubt their validity. The more mankind knows the more the individual is able to judge what is true and what is false, which is an important point to make at this particular juncture. I don’t want anyone to believe what I say here, nor have faith. Go check it out.

Despite these discoveries, cosmologists still have one major question when it comes to the subject of the Big Bang. This question is, what came before? The rule in science is one of action and reaction with each action being a reaction to the one before. Without a preceding action, the Big Bang is like saying: first there was nothing, and then is exploded. But if something came before then cosmology is in a whole new ballgame.

There will those who will not be saying: ‘God created,’ but not here. However, this series of hubs can only deal with one issue at a time so that creation story will have to wait its turn.

After the crucifixion of Jesus, there was a great deal of disagreement among his followers. These divided into a number of different groups and over a number of years, the Church in Rome used its connections with the Emperor to suppress all opposition, but this does not make them the rightful followers of Christ. Their bible includes only those scriptures that fitted and supported their theology, but this does not make that the truth. Marcion of Sinope and others proclaimed that the God Jesus called ‘Father’ was a different god to the god of Abraham and Moses. For example, Jesus taught with parables requiring each listener to judge for themself, yet the priesthood dictated answers with Jesus’ methods being one of their major reasons for dispute.

This parallels the story of Adam and Eve at the Tree of Knowledge. Genesis 3:22 shows that after eating the fruit, Adam and eve gained the ability to judge between right and wrong for themselves. This will be expanded on in a later addition.

For now, many rejected gospels, tracts and letters were discovered at Nag Hammidi in 1945, now in the Nag Hammadi Library. Some of these claim to describe conversations between the resurrected Jesus and his true followers during the missing 40 days about which Acts 1:3 says: “…being seen by them throughout the 40 days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.” The authorized bible contains nothing of what these things about the kingdom of God were.

The tract entitled, On the Origin of the World begins with Jesus saying: “Seeing that everybody, the gods of the world and humankind, say that nothing existed prior to chaos, I in distinction to them shall demonstrate that they are all mistaken, because they are not acquainted with the origin of chaos, nor with its root.”

It is clear from other tracts that chaos refers to the universe and so before chaos must be before the universe came into being, however that may have been.

Cosmologists and the rest disagree about what came before the Big Bang, yet here is an ancient text discussing this same question and pointing to an answer. The next question is, what was it that existed before the Big Bang?

There is an answer and it is one that complies with various scientific estimations on the nature of the proto-universe at it very beginning. This is that space was filled with energy; even though this may have been compressed into a singularity of such density that even space didn’t exist.

Whatever the case, energy is not just energy. There are different kinds of energy and these operate on a variety of wavelengths. It could, to use an evolutionary analogy, be described as a cosmic soup of energy, and then… It exploded, except that cosmologist have a problem with the scientific principle of cause and effect. What caused it to explode?

Alternatively, another Nag Hammadi text, this one entitled, The Secret Book of John, gives its own explanation. This is the same John who wrote Revelation and other texts support this treatise on the subject.

In this, John is mourning Jesus when he receives a vision in which Christ comes to him to explain the nature of things. Christ also gives a description of ‘his Father’ describing an, “invisible Spirit of whom it is not right to think of as a god or something similar, one who is above everything, even above gods. This All Father spirit is also described as a Monad, singular, not a trinity and something that corresponds more to the mysterious particle described by theoretical physics as being everywhere and in everything at the same time.

This and another treatise entitled, The First Thought in Three Forms, describes a, First Thought.

“And his thought performed a deed and she came forth. She who appeared before him in the shine of his light. This is the first power, before all of them and came forth from the power of his mind.” This ‘She’ is described as the pretennoia, from the statement in The First Thought text. “I am the Pretennoia, the thought that dwells in the light.”

This ‘She,’ compares to the Mother goddess found in all ancient creation accounts apart from Genesis and according to these and other texts, performs all the tasks attributed in scripture to the mysterious, male, Holy Spirit.

John goes on to describe: “This is the First Thought, his image, she became the womb of everything, for it is she who is prior to everything.”

Now consider this, out of this cosmic soup of energy sparks the First Thought, a thought that means something. What is a thought but an impulse of electrical energy sparking across the synapses of the brain? The electricity generated by the thinking process can be measured and that is what it is, a spark of energy with meaning. Somewhere within this cosmic cloud of energy a spark of energy took on meaning and this meaning was to create a means to do more. Cosmic evolution. The evolution of intelligent thought, something a great deal easier to occur by chance than physical evolution.

Of course it wouldn’t stop there and it doesn’t.

“And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surrounds the invisible Spirit and with his spark, she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does not equal his greatness. This is the only begotten child of the Mother-Father which had come forth. It is the only begotten one of the Father, the Pure Light.”

Now we have the Son, Father, Mother son, a pattern repeated throughout the world’s creation accounts, all except for one, the religion of Abraham and Moses. Yet this is not the beginning of Chaos or the physical universe.

The account goes on to describe the creation of four lights, also called Aeons. In a spiritual sense, light commonly corresponds to knowledge and these four lights are clearly titles after aspects of intelligence.

“And the three are will, thought and life. And the four powers are understanding, grace, perception and prudence.” Grace is then described as belonging to the Lightaeon Armozel, “which is the first angel. And there are three other aeons with this aeon: grace, truth and form.”

While the term aeon is translated as angel and given a specific name, the description corresponds to a process that can be described as evolving intelligence.

The process continues: “And the second Lightaeon, Oriel. And there are three aeons with him: conception, perception and memory.” Therefore the knowledge of grace, truth and form evolved leading to an understanding of conception, perception and memory.

“And the third Lightaeon is Daveithai… and there are three aeons with him: understanding, love and idea. And the fourth aeon was placed over the fourth light Eleleth. And there are three aeons with him: perfection, peace and wisdom.”

Despite the personalisation of these various powers, the text can be seen as describing a process of evolving intelligent. The life form involved is not a physical life form, but taking a scientific perspective, this could be described as the evolution of an energy being with intelligence but no physical form.

From another perspective, the Akkadian/Sumerian creation account, a text that predates Genesis, describes a primordial ocean named Apsu while the restless sea is named as Tiamat. These are sometimes described as referring to the physical ocean and sky of earth, or individual gods, though the described nature of Apsu and Tiamat doesn’t match this interpretation.

The text continues, that, ‘from their mingled waters came forth the Mummu (the tumult of the waves). This led to the birth of the Anshar, the celestial world.’

Apsu corresponds to cosmological energy, Tiamat the process of mixing leading to the evolution of the First Thought, the Mummu, leading to the birth of the Celestial World, or heaven, though further reading reveals this is definitely not the heaven of the god of Moses and Abraham. He hasn’t even appeared as yet. Nor has the physical universe.

What should also be taken into account is that many cosmologist and physicists propose the existence of alternative dimensions including the potential that alternative forms of life may also exist on these alternative dimensions.

Therefore, the beings we call gods are in fact energy beings that evolved and live on an alternative dimension, which can be seen as creating a problem for the first segment of this hub where evolution, creation and alien intervention were all dismissed. They were dismissed because, after centuries of philosophical and religious debate, no consensus has been achieved. It is time for an alternative and the alternative is, depending on your preference, an alternative of evolution, creation and alien intervention combined into one single theory.

The test is to compare this theory against the known facts of science, geology, religion and history to see if it stands up. Start testing next.

From a spiritual perspective, the Nag Nammadi texts, The Secret Book of John, The First Thought in Three Forms and The Origin of the World can be seen as describing the evolution of original spiritual intelligence followed by the creation of heaven and the beings we might call gods.

From a scientific perspective, this can be seen as a description of life, in the form of energy being, evolving on an alternative dimension. Though this is not a physical dimension, various physicists already speculate, based on scientific discovery, that alternative dimensions might exist, also that alternative forms of life might also exist.

Despite the extremity of this scientific view, it does show a potential consensus between the spiritual and the scientific viewpoint. There is also a scientific explanation for the next event recorded across the above texts.

“And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself and the conception of the invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit…”

“…And because of the invisible power which was in her, her thought did not remain idle and something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance…”

As with a great many such texts, spiritual powers or spiritual elements are personified. Allowance must also be made that this is a description of events on a spiritual level (alternative dimension) involving beings largely beyond are comprehension. If it is to be accepted that they are trying to communicate this information in a way that we understand, the possibility of misinterpretation also needs to be accepted.

A description follows: “ This is the first archon who took a great power from his mother. And he removed himself from her and moved away from the places in which he was born. He became strong and created for himself other aeons with a flame of luminous fire, which exists now.”

Taking a scientific perspective, this can be seen as action – reaction on the principle that for every positive there will be a negative. Plus and minus, north and south, ying and yang.

In the subject of Chaos, the Origin text continues. “How well it suits all people, on the subject of chaos, to say it is a kind of darkness! But in fact it comes from a shadow, which has been called by the name darkness. And the shadow comes from a product that has existed from the beginning.”

“And furthermore, with the first product, from which chaos was projected…”

After the natural structure of the immortal beings had completely developed out of the infinite, a likeness then emanated… It exercised volition and became a product resembling the primeval light. And immediately her will manifested itself as a likeness of heaven, having unimaginable magnitude; it was between the immortal beings and those things that came into being after them.”

To say that chaos, or before chaos, is a kind of darkness, is to say that nothing existed, or nothing existed that we can know. The description also describes chaos as being projected, like a shadow, after the natural structure of the immortal beings had developed.

This process of development can be likened to an evolution, creating a shadow. Action reaction, positive and negative, manifesting itself in the likeness of heaven with an unimaginable magnitude. Could this be a spiritual description of the Big Bang resulting in the heaven of space above?

This being is named Yaltabaoth and is described as creating a ‘heaven’ for himself occupied by archons and. He is described as the ‘Prime Parent’ of creation. The Origin text continues: “Now when the heavens had consolidated themselves along with their forces and all their administration, the prime parent became insolent. And he was honoured by all his army of angels… And for his part he was delighted and continually boasted saying, ‘It is I who am God and there is no other one that exists apart from me.”

So many similarities between the description of Yaltabaoth and those of the God of Moses and Abraham exist throughout these, and other texts, so there can be no doubt that this is who these texts are describing. He is a jealous God, a god with many faces and then, on hearing these claims, the higher heaven reveals itself.

From the Secret Book of John: “And a voice came forth from the exalted aeon-heaven: ‘The Man exists and the son of Man’…”

“And the whole aeon of the chief archon trembled, and the foundations of the abyss shook. And the waters which are above matter, the underside was illuminated by the appearance of his image…”

The higher aeon-heaven above the heaven created by Yaltabaoth, of which his heaven is a shadow, is revealed to show that there is something greater, to which he should submit himself, though he does not.

Though he does not. Yaltabaoth, the chief archon, the prime parent, says: “Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to our likeness… And let us call him Adam, that his name may become a power of light for us…”

And so, unlike Genesis where no reason is given for the creation of mankind, a full reading of this text gives both a reason and purpose for creation. Yet there is a problem.

The mother of Yaltabaoth wanted to retrieve the power that he had taken so petitions, the Mother-Father of All who is most merciful. Meanwhile Yaltabaoth has moulded man but can’t make him live. A trick is played by which he is advised to blow ‘something of his power’ into man’s face. “And he blew into his face the spirit which is the power of his mother; he did not know for he exists in ignorance. And the power of the mother went out of Yaltabaoth…”

The powers then became jealous because, “ they had given their power to the man, and his intelligence was greater than that of those who made him, and greater than that of the chief archon. … and that he could think better than they, and that he was free from wickedness, and they took him and threw him into the lowest regions of all matter.”

Compare this to Genesis 3:22. “And God went on to say, ‘Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad …” & 24. “And he drove the man out….”

But there is another twist. “The Mother-Father had mercy on the power that had been brought out of the chief archon, for the archon might gain power over the natural and perceptible body. And he sent, through his beneficent Spirit and his great mercy, a helper to Adam…”

And a little further on: “And I shall teach you what is the mystery of their life, which is the plan which they made together, which is the likeness of their spirit. The root of this tree is bitter and its branches are death, and its shadow is hate and deception is in its leaves, and its blossom is the ointment of evil, and its fruit is death and desire is its seed, and it sprouts in darkness.”

Apply this description to the various religions that descend from Abraham and Moses. They are all monotheistic, looking to a singular God, a single tree branching out from Abraham and Moses. These branches are death. How many wars, in which millions have died, have been fought between these branches, Christian against Muslim, Muslim against Jew. There has also been hate between these religions despite claims to the contrary and the mystery it proclaims can surely be likened to darkness.

In addition: “And I said to the saviour, ‘Lord was it not the serpent that taught Adam to eat?’

The saviour smiled and said … And he (Adam) knew that he was disobedient to him (the chief archon) due to the light which was in him, which made him more correct in his thinking than the chief archon.”

Surely this opens the way for a new perspective on Genesis.

The story of Adam and Eve can be taken as literal or figurative; the key element revolves around the issue of mankind’s right to spiritual knowledge, whether mankind has a right to this knowledge or not.

The writing of Genesis is credited to Moses. Moses was raised and educated as an Egyptian prince, giving him access to all the ancient knowledge. Many events in Genesis parallel those described in the earlier Sumerian creation account and it can be argued that Moses altered these to create the story he required, though this segment will accept the Genesis version of events.

Genesis tries to present everything as God’s plan, so this is the challenge.

Genesis 1 -4. God creates mankind forbidding him to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Under direction from a serpent, mankind disobeys.

Connections are made in the bible identifying this serpent as Lucifer, a name meaning Angle of Light, or knowledge bringer. The question here is, what is so wrong with mankind possessing knowledge especially the knowledge of good and bad. The ability to judge that is surely a good thing.

Some Hebrew accounts, the source of the modern bible version, identifying the serpent as the goddess Lilith, Adam’s first wife, covered in another hub.

Adam is thrown out of the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 4 tells the story of Cain and Able, paralleling a similar story in the Sumerian account where the two brothers make it up. One does not murder the other.

Genesis 6 – 10 tells the story of Noah and the Flood, paralleling the Sumerian Legend of Gilgamesh and other Flood legends. There is also another parallel most people miss. Genesis 6 describes the Nephilim, the descendants of various unions between spirit beings or angels that descended to Earth putting on human bodies for themselves. These Nephilim are also described as the ‘Mighty ones of legend,’ but what legend? The bible says no more.

However, mythology is full of stories of ‘Heroes’ and the adventures of mighty men with one parent who is a god or goddess and the other a mortal.

Another issue is that Adam and Eve were thrown from the Garden of Eden being told that they would die. They did not die. They were also cut off from the Tree of Knowledge. Accounts in mythology show that ‘gods’ descended to earth to help and teach mankind all they needed to know to survive. As in the previous segment, mankind was sent a helper.

On seeing the, the God of Genesis decides to wipe mankind from the face of the Earth. Flood accounts abound throughout mythology, but with one key difference. The various gods warned of the coming flood, brought by a destroyer god. According to some, boats or arks are built. In others, people flee to the mountaintops taking shelter in caves.

According to Genesis, the Flood comes and only faithful Noah and his family survive. Everyone else is swept away, so all knowledge of other gods etc. should also be swept away and destroyed.

Yet in Genesis 11 we have people building a city and what is described as a ‘Tower to the Heavens.’ The common religious interpretation of this is that the tower was to be built higher and higher until it reached heaven, something totally impossible. So if that were correct, why would God react? Surely an all knowing God would know it was impossible, so why not just wait for it to collapse under its own weight?

A better interpretation is that this tower was being built to the pattern of the heavens and this is supported by the great many ancient structures throughout the world that are built with some reference to the pattern of the heaven. The pyramids, Stonehenge, the Great Serpent Mound, the list goes on.

Another aspect of these structures is that they are also temples. Archaeologists have investigated the site of the Tower of Babel, which was completed later despite the Genesis account, and describe it as an early form of pyramid.

According to Genesis, God confused the languages of the people to prevent them completing their work. They then scattered across the globe. And everywhere you go across the globe you find that ancient civilisations devoted a huge amount to time and effort to building great temples that are, in their design and layout, related to the heavens above. These are temples to the heavens. The God of Genesis tried to stop one being built resulting in hundreds being built all over the globe.

From here we come to Abraham. In the whole world there is nobody worshiping the supposed only God to exist. Everyone is worshipping other gods while developing knowledge and civilisation. The God of Genesis has to pick one man and his family and take them out into the wilderness, away from access to knowledge and civilisation so as to have someone to give him worship.

After years of wandering these people are still living a subsistence existence, so when famine comes they have to go into Egypt, a great civilisation worshiping a pantheon of other gods, where they are taken in and given sustenance.

Consider my Hub, Who was Moses?

Eventually they leave, back out into the wilderness, more years living a subsistence existence until they are eventually led into the Promises Land, where their first act is to slaughter without mercy the people already living there.

Was it Gods plan to lead them into some Promised Land, or did he intend to keep them in the wilderness as he had before with Abraham? There is no way to answer, but the people of Israel did rebel and protest complaining they had been better off living in Egypt. Some were even calling to go back.

So the Nation of Israel continued through countless wars and strife, living under the subjection of Babylonians and the Romans until the coming of the Messiah. Another of God’s plans or something different? Why would God need to free his people from the Law he’d imposed?

The alternative view is that Christ came, not as the Son of the God of Israel, but as the Son of the All Father God who exists in the higher heaven, to set people free from religious oppression, whatever the name of that religion and that inside each individual is a spark of spiritual power. It is not for them to lift us up, but for us to fan the flame of our own spirituality by seeking knowledge, the knowledge that the God of Abraham and Moses seeks to forbid.

From the Treatise of the Great Seth (Identified as Christ)

“Abraham was a laughingstock, and Isaac and Jacob, since they were given a name by the Hebdomad. - David was a laughingstock since he was named Son of Man, having been activated by the Hebdomad… - Solomon was a laughingstock since he thought he was Christ… -The twelve prophets were laughingstocks, since they came forth as imitation of the true prophets. They came into being through the image of the Hebdomad… - Moses was a laughingstock, a ‘faithful servant’ being named as ‘friend’, they bore witness concerning him in iniquity, since he never knew me… For the doctrine of angels is what arose through them, to keep dietary rules and bitter slavery. They never knew truth nor will they know it, for there is a great deception upon their soul…”

Where there is deception, the only cure is knowledge, to take the power to judge, not to listen to what another says, not to me nor anyone else, but for each individual to take knowledge and judge for themselves.

The text continues: “But concerning my Father, I am the one the world did not know, and on this account, it rose up against me and my brethren. But we are innocent with respect to it; we did not sin. For the Archon was a laughingstock because he said, ‘I am God, and there is none greater than I. I alone and the Father, the Lord, and there is no other beside me. I am a jealous God bringing the sins of fathers on their children for three and four generations,’ as though he has become stronger than I and my brethren.”