https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2-D8rcvAnM

Mauro Biglino: Unexpected Bible - Translating it literally (2 of 6) - Eng. subs

From what we can draw out of the literal translation of the Bible, thus from the definition of the consonantic roots. the Bible tells us that we've been made using Elohim's TSELEM.
Usually, all translations you have, say that we are made in "God's image and after His likeness"
Do you all understand "ELOHIM"?
ELOHIM is a biblical term, which is usually translated as "God". Actually ELOHIM is a plural term by the way, MAYBE.
Because from the point of view of the Semitic philology things aren't so simple as it's often stated
Therefore, it's not so certain that ELOHIM is the plural of EL
They could be two ancient forms of.... OK
So, when we talk about ELOHIM, we say that stuff that we traditionally identify with God but that definitely in the Bible means a lot of people, a lot of people.
No doubt about that.
Independently from the question if the term is plural or not, it means many people
The cult says that we're made, the traditional translation, the in the image and after the likeness
Actually, the Bible says that we are made after the likeness but with something that contains Elohim's image, with something material that contains Elohim's image.
The dictionaries edited by the rabbis say more. They state that TSELEM derives from the verb TSALAM, which means "to cut out of".

1:42 mins
Screenshot of DNA

Actually the Bible says that we were made using a certain amount of material, which contains Elohim's image and that has been cut out
Now everyone of us immediately knows what we are referring to when we say that we take something that contains the image of an individual and that's been cut out.
It's the DNA
With any probability, this biblical tale is the summary of the Sumerian tablet's tale
In particular, in the "Enuma Elish", that is when the Sumerians tell about the beginning but where the Sumerians are much more precise than the Bible because Sumerians, who never thought of creating a religion
Never, they never built a temple, they never talked of Gods, the way we mean it, but they spoke about those other guys; Biago Russo talked very well about before
They certainly respected these people
They were afraid of them, because obviously as you understand, those guys were much more powerful, from the point of view of knowledge and technology, but they didn't consider them to be Gods, as they have been indicated afterwards
Sumerians never built a temple, the way we mean it

3:13 mins
Screenshot of a Sumerian carving (winged beast with man's head) - caption: Unerring Gods?

Hence, Sumerians, who were much more precise and who knew those weren't unerring gods, they hadn't any scruples about telling them of their failures.
And they tell us with higher precision compared to the monotheistic thought which has been later inserted in the Bible that these guys had a whole bunch of attempts gone wrong, before achieving the right slave.
That is, they made a lot of mistakes.
Those of you who followed years ago the incident of Dolly the sheep's cloning.
At one point, the news item comes out that in their lab in Edinburgh, they cloned Dolly the sheep
They don't tell us they made about 240 wrong sheep
It's not a made up number.
But it's understandable, they made about 240 wrong experiments and then they came up to Dolly the sheep which becomes the product
Sumerians did the same thing with their presumed gods
They made one that couldn't hold back urine, one that couldn't close his eyes, one with a crooked spine, one without genitals, one unable to eat.
I don't even remember them all. That's not important.
Anyway, they made a lot which were wrong.
A really horrible one, by coincidence, made with what had been extracted from the blood of one of the gods' chiefs.
How about that? The least successful attempt was the one with Enki's blood
At some point, they give a try with the blood of one of the 2 big bosses they had

Reads excerpt from the Meetup conference in Vinnercete, Italy:
Can you imagine?
From him, they got really a complete failure, a hairy being with closed throat, imperfect eyes, twisted ribs, paralyzed spine.
Heart, head and intestine damaged.
Unable to lift its hands.

These translations i brought you are not from Sitchin
Sitchin is important but one has to go beyond.
Regarding Sumerology, I follow the translations made by academics
Those are the translations by Giovanni Pettinato, who is a worldwide authority. Actually he was because he's dead.
Hence these are Giovanni Pettinato's translations, not an alternative Sumerologist, but an academic.
Italian? Yes, Italian. Incidentally, he was the chairman of the European commission for the creation of a Sumerian dictionary, hence an undisputed worldwide authority
I mean, no people are so stupid as to create such a kind of gods, adore them and at the same time, say that these guys, well, they proceeded by trial and errors, because you know they could make it like this.
Evidently, they told us those things.
Obviously, with the linguistical, conceptual, cultural instruments they were provided with but they told the story the way it probably happened.
The Bible made a summary of it; or better, it made two.
Because you know that for man's creation, man's making because creation is a really wrong term
About man's making, there is this particular story and then the other one, where God is portrayed as a potter, isn't he? who modeled clay
Now I don;t know if some geneticists or biologists are present here.
Everyone knows the importance of clay as a catalyst for the processes of combination of the nucleic acids, thus DNA and RNA.
And so the second tale, that the tradition says to be a tale of God portrayed as a potter, is not a mythical tale at all.
It's the same story, viewed from the other side.
While the first story tells us of that we've been made with Elohim's 'TSELEM', thus with Elohim's DNA, the second tale tells us that Elohim's acted on the AFAR, thus on the dust, on the clay that there was here on Earth.
This has two meanings because AFAR comes from the Accadian TIKIT that indicates both clay and what contains the form because clay is something which can assume and contain a form.
It means that this second tale is seen from the point of view of the hominid DNA which was present here on Earth.
So, we've been made with Elohim's 'TSELEM' that has been inserted into the AFAR, which is what contains the form and was already present here on Earth, thus the hominid DNA
The 2 tales, which were traditionally considered separately because hardly explainable from a theological spiritualistis point of view
If read from this angle, if read above all in parallel with the corresponding Sumerian tales, they tell the same story as seen from both sides
There is no contradiction. On the contrary, there is completion

What we are mostly interested is in the tree of knowledge of good and evil because that tale continues as if they actually ate of that fruit
Many years ago, while I was translating the Bible, quite obviously, I used to think with the mentality of someone born in our culture.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolically speaking, the moment when man began to distinguish right from wrong.
That is, he began to understand what is right and what is wrong, what is legitimate, what isn't.
In that moment, the so-called fundamental morals, the natural ethics was inscribed by God into man's heart.
While translating Genesis, i said, "That's weird; this stuff isn't in there!"
It's not there (9:25 mins)
Then I said to myself, "Well, I'm the perfect Mr Nobody."
So I put this thought aside for a while
But the idea of distinguishing isn't there.
December 2008, a psychoanalysts' convention was taking place at the University of Venice.
Some Freudian therapists spoke.
Then Amos Luzzato took up the word - former chairman of the Italian Israelitic communities and eminent Jewish biblicist.
Clearly the psychotherapists talk about the idea of good and evil, the sense of guilt, the distinction, natural morals inscribed into man's heart, and so on and so forth
Amos Luzzato takes the floor. He thanks the therapists, saying, "A very good analysis, only this stuff isn't in the Bible."
I gave a start on the chair because if it's me saying that, that counts for nothing.
But if it's Amos Luzzato, maybe.
He says, "It's not in there. It's not true."
At that moment, there was no distinction because I realised that in a matter of distinction Hebrew, there are some graphemes that aren't in there. Thus there is no distinction.
After Adam and Eve did a certain things, the Elohim is doing nothing else but a statement of fact; he's not sentencing them
He says, "You made a choice."
Now I want you to know that because of this choice, I didn't agree with while someone else, the serpent, about whom Biagio Russo spoke about before, wanted that that choice was made, or better, he intervened to make it easier
One of the "watchers"
He intervened, while the other one that didn't want this decision, says, "You made your decision, now get out of here."
"But you should know that outside of here, you are going to experience both the positive and negative sides of this choice."
It's not a condemnation.
It's what is called a "post-eventum verdict"
Trivializing, even if it's not a real triviality, because it is a proper example: You made your own bed, now you must lie in it.
(In Italian, literally: You wanted the bicycle, now PEDAL!)
"Pedalling" isn't a condemnation to those who chose the bicycle, but it's directly correlated
I mean one cannot get on a bicycle and not pedal.
Therefore if someone say, "You wanted the bicycle, now pedal", he/she is doing nothing else but a statement of fact.
Which is the same thing that Amos Luzzato says: Here God didn't sentence anybody.
Here God says: You made your choice and the choice is that you wanted, understood, experienced
That from the point of view of reproduction, you've gotten independent from us while beforehand, creating the slaves Biagio talked about before was Elohim-Annunaki's business."
From now on, the new species has become self-sufficient
Alright, out of this protected territory, because here only those we want to have here, may stay. You may go and live on your own.
You'll understand that amongst the effects of this choice, there are not only freedom and pleasure, but also the fact that from now on, if you want some food, you'll have to go get it by yourselves.
And you Eve, will understand that bearing children hurts
But you'll simply understand, I'm not sentencing you for this
You'll understand, you'll experience - YA DA the Jewish verb
You'll have knowledge of the fact that the new situation brings positive and negative aspects
TO WA RA, this you'll get to know both the good and the bad sides of this new situation of yours
Amos Luzzato, who obviously is higher than I, has gone even further.
He says that the term RA used to indicate the word "Bad or evil" has nothing to do with the idea of evil, with ethics but refers to, attention, the physio-pathology of human body
So the Elohim says to them, "once outside of this fenced and protected territory, where we put you and we're keeping you outside of here, you'll discover that you can feel bad. First of all, when you are hungry, you'll have to look for food, while here, you only needed to sit at the table.. And you Eve, that you've become prolific, will understand that bearing children hurts. Period."
There is no distinction, no ethics, no morals, no condemnation.
There's a post-eventum verdict: You got on the bicycle, you have to pedal.
That's it.
So, from this appeasing point of view, we are not living the fruit of a condemnation coming from then and that we have to bear; we are pedalling because our forefathers at some point got on that bicycle.
Amos Luzzato
We have to think about that because this changes the whole story