re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation

quote:

---

1 Enoch is not.

---

Yep. Enoch is not canonical.

quote:

---

Ultimately, it's all about LOVE. And the Mercy via Jesus Christ that flows from it. IMO.

---

God is love. But God is also more

Missing UFO-Linked Air Force General Had Dinner with Space Force Members Hours Before Disappearing

quote:

---

Authorities say Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland, 68, vanished from his Albuquerque home on February 27 under circumstances that have raised serious questions, especially given his history with advanced military research and longstanding UFO speculation surrounding one of America’s most secretive bases.

On Wednesday, Law & Crime released bodycam audio of a woman telling law enforcement that McCasland had dinner with Space Force members just hours before he disappeared." target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Authorities say Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland, 68, vanished from his Albuquerque home on February 27 under circumstances that have raised serious questions, especially given his history with advanced military research and longstanding UFO speculation surrounding one of America’s most secretive bases.

On Wednesday, Law & Crime released bodycam audio of a woman telling law enforcement that McCasland had dinner with Space Force members just hours before he disappeared.

The following 10 US scientists have died or gone missing over the past few years

---

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/missing-ufo-linked-air-force-general-had-dinner/

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Yeah, it actually does.

---

Nope

quote:

---

In Genesis 12:3 (Abram's initial call by God), it says, "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

---

What do you think this means? Every family on the spherical rocky planet third from the sun? Hardly. Since you take this out of context, allow me to show the context.

quote:

---

1Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your land and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth(red dirt) shall be blessed.”

---

So God is going to make a singular nation for Abraham’s descendants and all of his descendants (future families) who live on the red dirt will be blessed. Not the modern concept of the whole spherical earth. No, the context is the land Abraham is given, the specific land called the red dirt (essentially the same word used for the nation of Edom or of the first man - Adam - in Genesis. Adam is called “red dirt” because Yahweh formed him from the “red dirt”.

How can we tell the red dirt refers to the specific land given to Abraham for him and his descendants? It explains if you read further:

quote:

---

4So Abram went, as the LORD had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan, 6Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

---

And the red dirt “adamah” is squarely within the land of Canaan - and is the namesake of the nation of Edom.

quote:

---

Again in chapter 17, God says to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you."

---

So what? It isn’t ALL the nations of earth. It’s the nations of the land of Canaan at the time the author wrote or within recent memory. Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab, and Ammon.

quote:

---

Multiple nations

---

Yes the descendants of the fictional Abraham

quote:

---

All families of the earth

---

absolutely not, at least not “planet Earth”. The context is the red dirt land of Canaan.

quote:

---

Christians have always understood the fulfillment of these promises to be Jesus Christ, and the salvation He brings to the nations.

---

That concept is contained within 1 Enoch. You have a very slight tidbit that maybe could be argued is a hint in Isaiah. But most of the canonical Old Testament shows Yahweh didn’t give a shite about any other nations besides Israel/judah. It’s 1 Enoch that contains the major theme of the salvation of all nations, not just Israel and Judah.

quote:

---

You just need to read the text. I've given you some help by quoting part of it for you.

---

There’s that projection we talked about.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Chapter 12 does not include a blessing to the other nations (goyim).

---

Verse 3 is such a blessing.

---

It is not. The word you are confused about is Strong’s 4940 “mishpachah” which is normally translated as “families”. It is not “goy” or “goyim” (nations).

quote:

---

Gen. 15:5 and pretty much the entire chapter 17 speak to the confirmation of the blessings of the nations from chapter 12.

---

Well neither of those chapters contains the word “nations” and if you argue they are modifying chapter 12, then the nations they are referring to is the inheritance of Yahweh - the land given to Abraham only in the land of Canaan.

quote:

---

Time and time again, you are shown to be nothing but hot air.

---

Let the hate flow.

quote:

---

You lie and twist the Bible to attempt to discredit it while

---

I don’t lie, I don’t twist, but I do more than attempt to discredit it.

quote:

---

while I simply interpret it the same way Christians have for 2,000 years

---

You presume there was a single unified Christianity, and are wrong. If they were all united, there would have been no reason for the epistles of first and second John and second Peter and “Against Heresies” and all the ecumenical councils throughout history. You certainly hate facts.

quote:

---

You are a liar and will be damned with all other liars if you do not turn from your wickedness and bow to your creator, Jesus Christ.

---

And you’re a hateful person, and align well with the Jesus of Revelation.

quote:

---

What do you think this means? Every family on the spherical rocky planet third from the sun? Hardly.

---

In a sense, yes. The Christian doctrine of common grace is predicated on the death of Jesus Christ, who came through the line of Abraham. God justifies goodness being shown to sinners by the work of His Son, who is the seed of Abraham (do you want to have that conversation again, regarding whether or not that's literal sperm? )

quote:

---

Since you take this out of context, allow me to show the context.

---

Yes, Israel was a singular nation. That promise was to bless all nations, though. That's why the plural form is used in what I quoted.

quote:

---

So God is going to make a singular nation for Abraham’s descendants and all of his descendants (future families) who live on the red dirt will be blessed. Not the modern concept of the whole spherical earth. No, the context is the land Abraham is given, the specific land called the red dirt (essentially the same word used for the nation of Edom or of the first man - Adam - in Genesis. Adam is called “red dirt” because Yahweh formed him from the “red dirt”.

---

More nonsense by you. You keep making these logical leaps that aren't supported.

The same word used here is used all throughout the Old Testament--and especially in Genesis--for "earth" or "land" or "ground". There is nothing in that context that you provided that limits the words to the land rather than the earth. Even the Jews interpret this as "earth" ( one example)

quote:

---

And the red dirt “adamah” is squarely within the land of Canaan - and is the namesake of the nation of Edom

---

See above. It's understood as "earth", not merely th eland of Canaan. The nation of Israel was intended for Canaan, but the promise of blessing was to the entire earth and many nations (not just Israel).

It's almost like you just make this stuff up.

quote:

---

So what? It isn’t ALL the nations of earth. It’s the nations of the land of Canaan at the time the author wrote or within recent memory. Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab, and Ammon.

---

Nope. See above. Abraham was still outside of Canaan when God made these promises.

quote:

---

Yes the descendants of the fictional Abraham

---

We aren't arguing about your damning atheistic skepticism. We are arguing the text.

quote:

---

absolutely not, at least not “planet Earth”. The context is the red dirt land of Canaan.

---

The context is not merely the land of Canaan. Abraham was promised a land for his people, but the blessings extended beyond that.

quote:

---

That concept is contained within 1 Enoch. You have a very slight tidbit that maybe could be argued is a hint in Isaiah. But most of the canonical Old Testament shows Yahweh didn’t give a shite about any other nations besides Israel/judah. It’s 1 Enoch that contains the major theme of the salvation of all nations, not just Israel and Judah.

---

You don't actually think before you say these things, do you? You certainly aren't checking the factuality of your statements.

The Psalms are filled with references to the (Gentile) nations being called to worship the Lord, such as Psalm 67. The call is to all nations and peoples, not just the people of Israel.

Not only that, but there are many references to Gentiles being blessed and favored by God. God sends Jonah to Nineveh to preach repentance to them that they would be spared judgement, and Jonah is actually angry at God for sparing those heathens.

Ruth is a Moabite but trusts in God, and she is even included in the Davidic line, though she wasn't of the blood of Abraham.

The law of Moses also gave protections to Gentiles who journeyed in Israel.

quote:

---

It is not. The word you are confused about is Strong’s 4940 “mishpachah” which is normally translated as “families”. It is not “goy” or “goyim” (nations).

---

It's referring to other nations, within whom all the families of the earth live.

quote:

---

Well neither of those chapters contains the word “nations” and if you argue they are modifying chapter 12, then the nations they are referring to is the inheritance of Yahweh - the land given to Abraham only in the land of Canaan.

---

All three chapters are referring to the same promise of blessing to the nations of the earth. Jews still interpret it that way today.

Paul also interpreted it that way: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” -Gal. 3:8

Paul speaks to this several times, actually, including in Romans 4. He goes on to elaborate that the plan was always to include the Gentiles. That's how Paul interpreted Genesis 12-17, and that's how Christians have.

quote:

---

Let the hate flow.

---

I hate your blasphemy but I don't hate you. If I hated you, I wouldn't call you to repent.

quote:

---

I don’t lie, I don’t twist, but I do more than attempt to discredit it.

---

No, you lie and twist the Scriptures.

quote:

---

You presume there was a single unified Christianity, and are wrong. If they were all united, there would have been no reason for the epistles of first and second John and second Peter and “Against Heresies” and all the ecumenical councils throughout history. You certainly hate facts.

---

I'm not presuming anything of the sort, nor does such a presumption need to be made. Paul provided the interpretative lens on this issue in particular, and there was never a controversy on the subject of Christ fulfilling the promise to Abraham as the seed (promised to Eve) that would come through Abraham to save nations.

The disagreement wasn't on that part, but, ironically, on the land of Canaan. Some church fathers spiritualized the land of Canaan as typological for the spiritual inheritance we would receive. This is the opposite issue to what you're arguing.

quote:

---

And you’re a hateful person, and align well with the Jesus of Revelation.

---

It's not hate to tell sinners to turn from their sins in order to avoid the wrath of God that they rightly deserve. But thank you for saying I align well with Jesus on this (I do, because it's biblical).

quote:

---

No, you lie and twist the Scriptures.

---

Mire projection. You will believe whatever Calvin tells you. You are his puppet. Scripture be damned. You will make it say whatever you want it to say.

quote:

---

We are going to learn that civilization was jump started by "aliens" in Mesopotamia. It should be obvious to anyone who has given it any legitimate thought with an open mind already.

---

Bro, you just made a post about civilization being kickstarted by aliens in Mesopotamia. You’ve got bigger problems than worrying about what I post.

quote:

---

I think it does matter.

---

And yet it doesn't.

quote:

---

And that it is older than 1 Enoch is baseless, but it is also rather complex.

---

Not baseless at all. You keep saying that my statements are "baseless". I don't think you know what that means.

There is abundant evidence that the Old Testament (Torah, etc.) existed prior to 1 Enoch. Aside from the internal evidence of 1 Enoch that shows expansion of pre-existing OT narrative rather than the other way around, the Septuagint (at least the books of the Torah) was translated from Hebrew to Greek prior to the earliest 1 Enoch manuscripts are dated. The translation to Greek took place after a stable manuscript tradition already existed of the Hebrew Bible.

quote:

---

We know there was no Torah at all in the 4th century BC because the correspondence between the Jerusalem temple and the Elephantine temple has no knowledge of it where it would and should be pertinent.

---

This is an argument from silence. They didn't deny the existence of the Torah.

All the Elephantine evidence shows is a fringe and syncretistic community (they were worshipping other gods than Yahweh) operating in partial isolation from the religious norms of Israel. Their correspondence reflects their own situation, not the state of Torah knowledge in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Passover Papyrus assumes there is already instruction in the Passover, which has historically been understood as coming from Moses and being written in the Torah.

In addition, you have to consider the Samaritan Pentateuch was essentially the same as the Pentateuch held by the Jews, and that split occurred sometime between the 2nd and 5th centuries BC, which means that there had to have been a stable text already existing prior to that split so that both groups could claim it. That had to have happened prior to 1 Enoch, according to the manuscript evidence, at least.

quote:

---

Texts like Daniel were more or less finalized around 160BC.

---

That would be your antisupernatural assumption. There is evidence that Daniel was written much earlier, from the internal witness of the writing, itself, to the language used (it's more Persian than Greek).

quote:

---

And what we call 1 Enoch is a collection of 5 books. And when we get to Genesis 6, the author glosses over telling that history of the Nephilim and the sons of god sinning with sex with human women and all that… I and many scholars argue that the Genesis authors didn’t need to explain it since the 1 Enoch material was already known and widely distributed.

---

It makes more sense that 1 Enoch is an expansion rather than Genesis being a contraction or gloss. Like the Midrash, it was common to expand upon authoritative sources rather than to summarize or shorten them.

quote:

---

And “the Bible” is a collection of books too, some of which may have entered their final forms before 1 Enoch and some after.

---

"May have..."

You have to assume that they did in order for your view to work.

quote:

---

There really is no way to know. I can admit that. I’m open minded. But you have a dogma to defend, and you are close minded. If you were a serious person, you would admit that there’s no way to know with certainty which books came first and which came next.

---

There's plenty of evidence to show that the Bible (Torah) came first. You aren't open minded. You just want to appear to be in order to convince others that you are being fair and unbiased, but you are anything but. Your entire argument against Christianity is based on a naturalistic worldview, where you supposedly lean on evidence and not dogma to come to your conclusions, but time after time after time, you have shown to be just as dogmatic in your atheism as you accuse me and others of being. You ignore the evidence or twist it to support your own fringe conclusions. You can stop pretending to be neutral. You aren't.

quote:

---

You can’t even admit Moses didn’t write the Books of Moses.

---

He did.

quote:

---

I’ve shown it is plausible and reasonable. If you write a story of a cyborg traveling back in time to kill a kid named John Connor, I’m going to reasonably assume you got it from the 1991 James Cameron-directed movie and not that you and James had a common source. Your argument of a common source is baseless because there is no known earlier source. 1 Enoch is the earliest known source. I’m not saying your wrong, but if you were right, it would be right by accident, because a reasonable person would use the evidence available to make the conclusion that best fits the evidence and is most likely.

---

As I said previously, 1 Enoch shows evidence of expansion, and there is no evidence that the writing existed before Genesis was written, but on the contrary, there is evidence that Genesis was written before 1 Enoch.

Your example of the Terminator movie falls apart on several fronts, so it isn't even a good parallel. There are manuscripts found at Qumran of the Pentateuch that predate 1 Enoch manuscripts.

quote:

---

Stop it. I don’t know why you fight so hard against it but you are showing your petulance and childishness. It took more than a “few individuals” to translate 1 Enoch into 5 languages to spread across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East and it took the skins of 1000s of goats to accomplish the task.

---

We are talking about two things, then. You are talking about the familiarity of the writing while I'm talking about it being considered Scripture. The writing being sent to different regions doesn't prove that it was considered Scripture.

quote:

---

You know this is bullshite Foo. That’s why you’re such a bad liar. When “Jesus” told the Sadducees they didn’t know the scriptures, you claim that is an affirmation that they all were in agreement on the scriptural canon. It’s hogwash. The Sadducees which controlled the temple patently rejected all but the Torah, for example. And another example - the most successful Christian sect of the 2nd century led by Markion of Sinope rejected the entire Jewish Bible.

---

I wasn't referring to all without exception. I was contrasting your claim of the large geographical existence of 1 Enoch with that of the Hebrew Bible, which included the Pentateuch, which wasn't in question, and which speaks more specifically to your claim about 1 Enoch.

quote:

---

Read a book on the subject matter, Foo. They are ALL fragments. All Qumran documents are fragmentary because they were scribbled on 2200-2500 year old goat skins.

---

That's exactly my point. You were comparing "copies" and "books" instead of manuscript fragments. I corrected you by pointing out that there were actually more fragmented copies of other biblical books than 1 Enoch, showing that your "inconvenient truth" wasn't so inconvenient at all.

quote:

---

Isaiah yes but not sure of the others. I don’t think so, but maybe, but regardless 1 Enoch was a highly valued very often copied scripture for them. I’m not sure of the 1.5% number you may have pulled from your arse but only about 20% of Qumran texts are scriptural. There’s way more material there, including the worship of their coming messiah who would be the high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

---

Yes, they had a lot of extra-biblical material. You keep trying to hang your hat on 1 Enoch, though, and it doesn't fit the context. You keep claiming that the sheer number of copies of Enoch proves how important it was to them, and I was showing you that they had more copies of other writings. Welcome to the discussion

quote:

---

I’m going to skip your argument of presumptions and transcendent God and all that because it will be useless

---

To you..

quote:

---

But on the scriptural canon, no it wasn’t “received” but yes it was basically a vote..

---

Way to gloss over hundreds of years of history :lol: