Mauro Biglino

Mauro Biglino — Biography

Mauro Biglino (born 1950, Turin) is an Italian linguist, translator, and writer known for his literal, word-by-word translations of the Hebrew Bible and his controversial reinterpretations of its content. For more than a decade he worked with Edizioni San Paolo, one of Italy’s leading Catholic publishing houses, producing interlinear Hebrew-Italian editions of the Old Testament used in seminaries and universities. His task was strictly philological: to give the exact lexical meaning of each Hebrew term without theological commentary.

That discipline led him to surprising conclusions. When he translated key words such as Elohim, Ruach, Kavod, and Tselem exactly as they appear in the text, he found that the descriptions often pointed not to abstract divinity but to concrete, physical beings and machines. These findings conflicted with accepted Church doctrine. After twelve officially published volumes, his contract with the Vatican publisher ended. Biglino has said he left because his literal renderings no longer fit the interpretive framework the Church wanted to maintain.

Freed from institutional limits, he began presenting his results to the public. His books—Il Dio Alieno della Bibbia (“The Alien God of the Bible”), Non C’è Creazione nella Bibbia (“There Is No Creation in the Bible”), and Gods of the Bible—have become international bestsellers. In them he argues that the ancient Hebrew, Sumerian, and Greek texts all record a single historical narrative about technologically advanced beings who governed early humanity. Today Biglino lectures across Europe and the Americas, appearing in documentaries and symposia on ancient history, theology, and “paleo-contact.” Whether one agrees or not, he offers readers a rigorous linguistic foundation and the courage to read sacred texts without filters.

Video 1 Summary — What Biglino Is Saying and Why It Matters

In this talk, Mauro Biglino weaves Sumerian, Greek, and biblical records into one continuous history. His premise: mythology is distorted memory, not fiction.

1. The Sumerian Starting Point

He cites an academically translated Sumerian tablet where the Anuna (Anunnaki) decide to lighten their workload:

“We will kill one of the gods so that his blood may sprout mankind.”

Humans are created from the blood of the slain god and assigned agricultural labor so the “great gods” can rest. Biglino connects this to Genesis, where humans are made from something cut out of the Elohim—what he calls the tselem, literally “that which is carved off.” To him, this refers to a biological transfer—DNA extracted from the gods themselves. Humanity, in this view, was engineered as a servant species.

2. Language as Evidence

He focuses on Hebrew etymology:

• Tselem – traditionally “image,” but in older roots means “something cut off.”

• Mi-Qedem – usually translated “in the east,” but literally “from what was before,” implying that Eden was built from an earlier model or prototype, not simply placed eastward.

• Gan Eden – “enclosed, protected garden,” suggesting a controlled agricultural environment—a laboratory rather than a wilderness paradise.

3. The Greek Mirror

To Biglino, the Iliad and Odyssey recount the same world under different names. Greek scholars, he notes, believed myths hid truth; Homer’s epics were geography lessons, not fairy tales. In The Odyssey, the Phaeacians live in a walled, ever-fruiting garden watered by springs that flow year-round—clearly, he says, another version of Eden. Their ships navigate “guided by thought,” needing no helmsmen, wrapped in their own fog.

Biglino reads these as descriptions of self-propelled craft, the same technology implied by the “cloud” (anān) and the “kavod” (glory/vehicle) of Yahweh that descends before the Israelites in Exodus. The “cloud of glory,” then, may have been a machine—a mobile luminous craft—rather than a metaphor for divine presence.

4. Interbreeding and Shared Bloodlines

He bridges cultures again through the story of the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6, comparing them with Greek tales of gods mating with mortals—Apollo, Athena, Poseidon, and others. Both traditions speak of giants and heroes born of mixed unions, implying genuine consanguinity between gods and humans.

He even notes that the Book of Maccabees mentions kinship between Jews and Spartans, suggesting that the Mediterranean myths and the Hebrew record were parts of one genealogical continuum, not isolated revelations.

5. The Politics of Interpretation

Biglino quotes religious-studies scholars who explain that “whoever controls the past controls the present.” Sacred texts, he says, became instruments of oracular authority—their literal meanings re-written to support priestly power. Myths once describing physical rulers and events were gradually transformed into metaphysical doctrines.

Thus, the difference between “pagans” and “monotheists,” he argues, is mostly interpretive. All cultures prayed to unseen benefactors who healed, punished, and flew in clouds; only later did theologians divide them into “false gods” and “the one true God.”

6. Reframing the Past

By treating Homer, Sumer, and Genesis as parts of the same archive, Biglino paints an alternative picture of human origins:

• The gods were technological beings who terraformed, engineered life, and managed human labor.

• Their estates—ganim, “gardens”—were experimental agricultural zones.

• Their machines—“clouds,” “ships,” “glories”—were vehicles operating through means we would now call advanced physics.

• Religion, as we know it, is the political mythology built on the memory of those encounters.

The Takeaway

Mauro Biglino’s work invites readers to re-examine sacred scripture with a linguist’s eye rather than a believer’s lens. Whether one views his theory as bold insight or provocative speculation, his core message is consistent: ancient texts preserve humanity’s forgotten contact with its makers, and understanding that contact may reveal not only our origins but also why later institutions sought to hide them.

Video 2 Summary — El Elyon and Zeus: The Division of the Earth

In this lecture, Mauro Biglino continues his comparative analysis between the Hebrew Bible and the classical Greek world, showing that both describe a shared system of divine governance—a hierarchy in which the Earth was divided among powerful beings. Theology, he says, turned this historical arrangement into religion.

1. One Structure, Two Languages

In Hebrew, the ruling assembly is called the Elohim, overseen by El Elyon—literally “the one who is above.” Biglino clarifies that Elyon is not a name but a title of rank, meaning “the superior” or “the chief.” In Greek texts, the equivalent structure appears under Zeus and the theoi. Both pantheons, he argues, preserve the same concept: an organized empire ruled by a supreme leader who delegated authority to regional governors.

2. Abraham and the Two Lords

Biglino focuses on Genesis 14, where Abraham meets Melchizedek, “priest of El Elyon.” In the later Masoretic version, Abraham swears by “Yahweh, El Elyon, creator of heaven and earth.” But in the earlier Qumran manuscripts, Yahweh is absent—Abraham swears only by El Elyon.

This, for Biglino, reveals that Yahweh was originally subordinate, one of several administrators under the command of El Elyon. Only later did scribes merge the two figures, elevating Yahweh from local governor to supreme deity.

He also highlights a crucial mistranslation. The Hebrew verb qanah, rendered as “to create,” actually means “to acquire, to own legally.” Therefore, El Elyon was not “creator of heaven and earth” but owner or ruler of them—a title denoting possession, not divine creation. Over time, this legal concept was reinterpreted as metaphysics, changing an administrative hierarchy into the theology of creation.

3. The Division of Nations

In Deuteronomy 32:8, the Masoretic text says the Most High divided the nations “according to the number of the children of Israel.” This, Biglino notes, is historically illogical since Israel did not yet exist. The Qumran version corrects it: the division was made “according to the number of the sons of the Elohim.”

This makes sense within his framework—El Elyon distributed territories among his subordinates, each responsible for one people. Yahweh’s assigned inheritance was Jacob, meaning the Israelites were a managed colony, not a uniquely chosen race. The verse even states that Yahweh “guided them alone,” implying that other Elohim governed their own populations in other regions.

4. Plato’s Matching Account

Biglino finds the same story preserved in Greek philosophy. In Critias, Plato describes how “the gods divided the whole Earth by lot” without conflict, assigning each its portion and guiding humanity like shepherds. They ruled not through violence but through authority and persuasion—though Yahweh, he adds, was more militant by temperament.

Plato’s image of divine rulers drawing lots perfectly mirrors the biblical distribution of lands by El Elyon. Where Deuteronomy remains vague about the method of division, Plato supplies it: the Earth was divided by lottery. Both traditions, he argues, describe the same global partition told in two languages.

5. The Meaning of the Words

Here Biglino dismantles the linguistic confusion at the root of theology. Both Elohim and theoi were originally titles, not names, describing a function rather than a being.

• Elohim meant “judges,” “rulers,” or “legislators”—those who govern.

• Theos derives from the Indo-European root dyeu- (“to move swiftly toward the light”), first used for stars because of their motion across the heavens.

Only later did philosophers and theologians turn these attributes into nouns, turning “those who move in the heavens” into divine beings. What had described a role or capacity gradually became a personified deity—an adjective turned into God.

6. Reframing the Past

When these fragments are combined, a clear picture emerges:

• El Elyon / Zeus — supreme ruler, legal possessor of heaven and earth.

• Elohim / Theoi — subordinate governors managing separate peoples and lands.

• Yahweh — a local administrator whose jurisdiction (Israel) was later reinterpreted as universal rule.

This, Biglino argues, is the original meaning of “divine order.” Monotheism was born when editors erased the council and left only one god standing, transforming an ancient federation of rulers into the illusion of a single omnipotent creator.

The Takeaway

For Biglino, scripture and myth describe the same event: the Earth once belonged to a network of powerful beings who organized humanity under their rule. El Elyon was the high commander; Yahweh, one of his lieutenants. The later unification of these names concealed history under the language of theology.

Religion, in this view, is not revelation but memory rewritten—the story of empire recast as heaven, of rulers remembered as gods, and of humanity’s submission retold as faith.

Video 3 Summary — The Flying Chariots and the Kavod of Yahweh

In this lecture, Mauro Biglino explores one of his most controversial themes: that both the Bible and the Homeric poems describe real flying craft—machines used by divine beings, not visions of spiritual glory. Where theology sees metaphor and miracle, Biglino sees detailed eyewitness reports from a pre-technological age.

1. Homer’s Airborne Chariots

Biglino begins with The Iliad (Book 8), where Hera and Athena decide to enter the Trojan battle. Athena puts on “the tunic of Zeus who gathers the clouds,” mounts a flaming chariot, and seizes her spear. Angered, Zeus threatens to break the legs of their swift horses beneath the chariot and to smash the vehicle, warning that their lightning wounds would not heal for ten years.

The text, he notes, uses the Greek word upsiekes—usually translated as “high-thundering”—but it actually means “those that make noise up high.” The “horses” that hold the chariot aloft are said to be underneath it, not pulling from the front, and the vehicle descends enveloped in a cloud. To Biglino, this reads like a literal description of powered flight: engines below, noise and vapor above, and a craft descending through exhaust or mist.

The ancients, he says, described what they saw with the only vocabulary they had—horses for propulsion, clouds for smoke, thunder for sound.

2. The Biblical Counterpart

Biglino then turns to the Book of Ezekiel, which he considers one of the most explicit technological reports in scripture. The prophet records precise dates and locations, insisting that he was awake and conscious. He describes a ruach (a strong wind) coming from the north, accompanied by a great cloud flashing with light. Within it appears the kavod of Yahweh, often translated as “the Glory of the Lord.”

The ruach lifts Ezekiel between heaven and earth while the kavod rises from its station, producing a roar like the sound of many waters. The temple fills with light as the object ascends. The narrative distinguishes between two separate devices:

• Ruach — the lifting or transporting force, possibly an energy field.

• Kavod — the luminous craft that emits light, sound, and movement.

If kavod were merely a metaphor for divine majesty, Biglino argues, it would not have physical location, motion, or acoustic effects. The Hebrew root kbd means “heavy” or “armament,” suggesting something mechanical, solid, and weaponized, not intangible holiness.

3. Noise, Light, and Circular Motion

In Ezekiel 43, the scene grows even more technical. As the kavod approaches, its sound intensifies—“like the voice of many waters”—and the ground below shines in a circular pattern. The Greek Septuagint adds the phrase kucloten, meaning “in a circle,” implying illumination cast evenly around the landing area.

For Biglino, these details—rising volume, spreading light, circular glow—are consistent with a craft descending or lifting off, generating acoustic vibration and radiant exhaust. It is, he says, a technology described through the senses of an ancient observer.

4. Weapons of Glory

To reinforce this interpretation, Biglino cites modern Hebrew linguist Jeff Benner, whose etymological dictionary defines kavod as “armament” or “battle gear.” This reading transforms Psalm 24, where the “King of Kavod” commands the gates to lift for his entry. The verses read:

“Lift up your lintels, raise the eternal gates,
so that the King of Glory may come in.
Who is this King of Glory?
The Lord, strong and mighty in battle.”

Biglino interprets this literally. The gates are not metaphysical portals but mechanical doors opening to admit a physical craft. The repeated command “lift up your gates” suggests an entry procedure rather than a prayer. The “King of Kavod” is the warrior inside—the pilot, not an abstraction.

5. The Gates of Olam

The Psalm describes these as olam gates. The Hebrew word olam, traditionally rendered “eternal,” actually means “hidden” or “unknown place.” Thus, “eternal gates” are not symbols of heaven but doors leading to the unknown—perhaps even another realm or dimension.

Biglino connects this with the Vatican scholar Monsignor Corrado Balducci, who once noted that the same Psalm distinguishes between “the Earth and its inhabitants” and “the world and those who dwell elsewhere.” For Biglino, this subtle language hints that the ancient authors knew of inhabitants beyond our world—and that the kavod was a craft capable of passing between these regions through the olam gates.

6. A Fleet of Machines

Beyond Ezekiel and the Psalms, the Bible uses multiple terms for these aerial vehicles:

• Ruach — wind or propulsion.

• Kavod — heavy craft or armament.

• Merkavah — chariot or vehicle.

• Megillah and Epha — containers or carriers.

Meanwhile, the apocryphal Book of Enoch, studied by Luigi Moraldi, lists twenty-three types of divine chariots. For Biglino, this variety signals not metaphor but technical classification—different models of the same technology observed at different times.

7. Machines Mistaken for Divinity

Homer’s chariots and the Bible’s glories, he concludes, describe the same phenomenon: machines mistaken for gods. Both rise from clouds, thunder through the air, emit fire and light, and carry chosen passengers skyward. Their observers, lacking modern vocabulary, described engines as horses, exhaust as clouds, and flight as miracle.

To Biglino, these are not visions but documented encounters with advanced aerial technology—evidence that the gods of scripture and myth were real, physical beings equipped with vehicles beyond ancient comprehension.

The Takeaway

Mauro Biglino’s message is consistent: the Bible and Homeric epics preserve the memory of technological contact between humans and superior beings. The “glory of the Lord” was not divine radiance but the glow of machinery; the “wind of God” was not spirit but propulsion.

In reinterpreting these texts through language rather than belief, Biglino asks us to see ancient religion as a record of lost technology—a world where sound, light, and cloud marked the descent of gods, and faith was born from the noise of their engines.

Video 4 Summary — Sandals, Smoke, and the Machinery of the Gods

In this lecture, Mauro Biglino returns to the Bible–Homer parallels on flying machines, arguing that both corpora preserve concrete, sensory descriptions of technology. He tracks how the gods move (feet together, “sandals” tied beneath), what they demand (smoke that calms them), and how biblical terms (ruach, kavod, megillah, ephah, merkavah) point to distinct devices. He then exposes translation choices that, in his view, soften hard mechanics into “visions.”

1. How the Gods Move: Feet Together, Sandals Below, Cloud Around

Homer describes divine locomotion in physical detail. In the Iliad and Odyssey, gods launch on missions with sandals tied under their feet, traveling with feet together just above land and sea, wrapped in cloud. Ajax recognizes Poseidon by the gait and leg shape; Heliodorus (Aethiopica) even explains why Egyptian statues show gods with joined feet—they don’t walk heel-to-toe but cut through the air with an irresistible forward glide.

Hera’s sprint from Olympus reads like low-altitude flight: she “does not touch the earth,” bends tree-tops under her passing, then skims the waves. Hermes’ “ambrosial, golden sandals” carry him “with the breath of the wind,” over sea and land—imagery Biglino pairs with the Bible’s ruach (wind/drive) that accompanies the Elohim in motion.

2. Smoke Offerings: What the Gods Wanted (and Why Hermes Complains)

Arriving at Calypso’s island, Hermes grumbles: Zeus sent him where no city offers sacrifices. In Homer, the gods relish the smoke (especially fat burned to ash); in Numbers, Yahweh repeats that the odor “soothes” him; Sumerian texts say the Anunnaki rush to post-flood offerings “like flies.”

Biglino’s point isn’t piety but chemistry: ritual smoke contains aromatics that act like neurotransmitter analogs, producing relaxation or euphoria—precisely the effect the texts ascribe to the gods’ response. The demand for smoke is practical, not mystical.

3. Genesis 1:2 Doesn’t Say “The Spirit of God Sat There”

The Hebrew reads “ruach Elohim was merachefet over the waters.”

• Merachefet = hovering (as in Deut. 32’s eagle), not “resting on the surface.”

• There’s no article: it’s “a ruach of Elohim,” not the spirit—implying more than one ruach in their inventory.

For Biglino, this is technical: a hover-capable device skims the waters, an early snapshot of the fleet.

4. What Ruach Really Covers (and How Benner Frames It)

Citing Jeff Benner, Biglino notes that ruach has a broad semantic field anchored in wind/motion and extending (by context) to route-following force, or even a person’s “spirit” in the idiomatic sense (“team spirit”). Context decides. In Genesis 1 it’s not character or ghostliness; it’s a moving, hovering agent—a carrier.

5. Zechariah Is Awake—and Sees Multiple Flying Craft

Zechariah emphasizes he’s awake (“like a man roused from sleep”) and repeatedly looks up. What he then describes are not abstractions but shapes, materials, and dimensions:

• A flying megillah — literally a cylinder/scroll, “twenty by ten cubits,” moving overhead.

• An ephah — a container with a lead hatch, inside of which sits a woman; two winged women lift it, and it’s taken to Shinar (Sumer) to be set on a pedestal.

• Four merkavot — “chariots” emerging between two bronze mountains, then dispersing to the four directions on assignment.

Add these to the existing terms and you get a catalog—ruach, kavod, cherubim, merkavah, ephah, rechev, megillah—each signaling different platforms and roles.

6. Elijah’s Departure Was Scheduled, Witnessed, and Searched

2 Kings 2 isn’t a swoon; it’s logistics. Elijah knows he’ll be taken; disciples along the route know it too. Fifty witnesses stand at a distance and watch as a “chariot of fire with horses of fire” (a rechev) parts Elijah from Elisha, and Elijah ascends in a whirlwind. The crowd then proposes a search party—“perhaps the ruach of Yahweh set him down on a mountain or valley”—and they look for three days. Biglino’s emphasis: planned extraction, public lift-off, operational search. Not a private vision, not a kidnapping.

7. Ezekiel’s Mechanics: Turbines, Wheels, and a Bad Translation

In Ezekiel 10–11, the kavod is mechanically linked with cherubim and wheels; it takes off and lands with audible power heard even outside the temple court.

• 10:13—“the wheels were called galgal.” Many translations render this as “whirlwinds/turbines,” some leave it as galgal (Luther), and the Septuagint transliterates (ghelghel) because Greek lacked a neat equivalent. Biglino prefers the sense of turbine/whirling wheel, matching a propulsion assembly.

• 11:22–24—movement and return: the cherubim lift wings, wheels move with them, the kavod rises and goes to the eastern mountain. Then a ruach lifts Ezekiel and returns him to the deportees in Chaldea.

• The clincher—mistranslation: many versions end, “the vision disappeared before me.” But the Hebrew says, vayya‘al me-‘ālai — “and it went up from above me.” That’s not a fading daydream; it’s a vertical departure—the exact phrase you’d use watching an aircraft climb out.

The Takeaway

Biglino’s through-line is consistency. The gods move with under-foot engines, skim just above land and sea, travel with cloud and noise, demand smoke that biochemically calms them, and operate a fleet of distinct vehicles: ruach carriers, kavod landers, merkavot task craft, megillah cylinders, ephah containers, rechev fire-chariots—plus turbined wheels (galgal) that shout their mechanics.

Where translations blur hard nouns into “visions,” the Hebrew often preserves direction, altitude, materials, and procedure. Read literally, Homer and the Bible are remembering machines, not metaphors—technology witnessed, named with ancient vocabulary, and later softened into theology.

Video 5 Summary — Enoch, Noah, and the “Walking with the Elohim” Years

In this lecture, Mauro Biglino shifts from flying craft back to the early Adamite era, arguing that the first generations “lived with the Elohim” in sustained, physical contact. He reads Genesis, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, and rabbinic notes with a literal, linguistic lens: Enoch and Noah didn’t just believe in God; they traveled back and forth with the Elohim, received technical knowledge, and underwent concrete rites (like full-body anointing) before entering restricted spaces.

1. The Adamite Timeline—Centuries of Overlap with the Elohim

Biglino stresses the long lifespans and overlapping generations (e.g., Adam alive when Lamech—Noah’s father—is born). He links this to traditions about “the descent of the 200” (sons of the Elohim) who took Adamite women “as many as they wished,” producing a large mixed population. In his framing, this period is not mythic distance but social proximity: humans and Elohim cohabiting, interacting, breeding, and traveling together.

2. Enoch Taken Alive—And He Says It Was Real

Genesis twice says Enoch “walked with the Elohim” and then “was no more because the Elohim took him” at age 365—far earlier than the 900-year lifespans around him. Biglino reads the Book of the Secrets of Enoch to fill in details: two towering figures appear, wake him, and he insists “the men were real and close to me,” not a dream or vision. Brought before the empire’s high ruler, Enoch experiences intense heat on his face—an angel “cools” him—echoing Moses’ face burned after exposure to Yahweh’s kavod in Exodus. For Biglino, these are physiological effects of proximity to machinery, not metaphors of holiness.

3. “Walked With the Elohim” — What the Hebrew Actually Says

The stock translation “walked with God” hides two Hebrew features Biglino highlights:

• The article: the Masoretic text has “with the Elohim,” not a bare “God,” which in his view implies a specific party or group Enoch and Noah moved with.

• The verb form: hithallech (hitpael) signals intensive, reciprocal movement—“going back and forth together,” a continual, physical circulation rather than a devotional metaphor.

Taken literally, the phrase describes repeated joint travel—not piety in the abstract.

4. Noah: Intact Lineage and Two Different Covenants

Genesis calls Noah “righteous, blameless in his generations,” which Biglino takes as physio-anatomical or genetic integrity amid the mixed unions of Genesis 6. Like Enoch, “Noah walked with the Elohim.” Biglino then distinguishes two covenants:

• The Noahic covenant (with all humanity).

• The Sinai covenant (Yahweh with Israel only), as Deuteronomy emphasizes “not with our fathers…but with us” alive “today.”

For him, this clarifies that different Elohim made different agreements with different populations.

5. Enoch as Culture-Bearer — The Sumerian Parallel

During his journeys, Enoch receives scientific and astronomical knowledge to write for humankind. Biglino aligns him with the Sumerian Emmeduranki/Emmedurana—also the seventh pre-flood patriarch—who is taught by the Anunnaki and commissioned to pass on expertise. The parallel, he argues, shows a shared memory across cultures of a human taken in, trained, and sent back as a technological intermediary.

6. Not a Dab of Oil — The Mechanics of Anointing

When Enoch is presented to the great ruler, Michael is ordered to strip, wash, rub, and thoroughly anoint him with a perfumed oil blend. Biglino canvasses major lexica (mashach = wipe, rub, smear, grease) to argue anointing was a full-body, protective treatment, not a ceremonial drop. Exodus 30’s recipe (myrrh, cinnamon/cassia, aromatic cane, olive oil) reads like a functional antiseptic/antimicrobial compound used on people, vessels, and rooms that entered the most restricted space. In his view, this was sanitation and safety protocol before proximity to the Elohim—again, concrete procedure over symbolism.

7. Vehicles and Itineraries — Enoch’s Fleet Exposure

The Enoch traditions (as cited in Qumran/apocrypha) describe “23 kinds of flying chariots.” Biglino treats this as classification rather than poetry: multiple platforms, multiple roles, sustained travel. It dovetails with his broader catalog across the series (ruach, kavod, merkavah, megillah, ephah, rechev), each pointing to distinct devices in active use during the Adamite–Elohim cohabitation.

8. The Living Texture of the Era

Across Enoch, Noah, Moses, and Elijah, Biglino sees the same pattern: scheduled extractions, visible craft, bodily effects, technical rites, and instructional missions. Rabbinic notes about youthfulness before Abraham, the descent of “the 200,” and continuous movement with “the Elohim” all feed one picture: an age of direct contact remembered in precise Hebrew verbs and procedural details, later smoothed into theology.

The Takeaway

Biglino’s Enoch–Noah lecture locks his core claim into place: when the text says “walked with the Elohim,” it means walked with them—back and forth, repeatedly, under protocols (anointing), aboard varied craft, and under a chain of command. Enoch’s face burns, Moses’ face burns, an angel cools, perfumed oils sanitize—material events with material consequences. Read this way, the Bible and related traditions are not allegories of faith but archives of contact, where chosen humans were trained, transported, and tasked by powerful beings later remembered as “God.”

Video 6 Summary — The Warfaring Elohim and the Lost Female Gods

In this extended interview with Paul Wallis, Mauro Biglino revisits his central claim: the Old Testament describes a council of Elohim—plural, tangible beings—whose internal rivalries shaped early human history. The discussion moves from northern migrations of these “powers” to the origins of Yahweh, the missing feminine deities, the myth of Eden, and the mistranslation that turned plural beings into a single, abstract God.

1. The War Council in Heaven

Biglino begins by noting that many Elohim were warfaring beings. In the Hebrew Bible’s ʿadat El (the Sky Council), they conspire, deceive, and provoke wars. Yahweh is portrayed not as transcending this violence but participating in it—“a divided and warring humanity,” Biglino says, “was not a bad thing” for them.
These stories mirror the “royal politics of the heavens,” where competing powers divide humanity and territory for control.

2. Migrations of the Elohim — From Jerusalem to the North

Citing Josephus Flavius and Tacitus, Biglino recalls accounts of flying machines seen over Jerusalem in 70 CE, followed by a voice proclaiming, “The gods are leaving this place.”
He suggests these Elohim relocated northward—possibly remembered as the Aesir gods of Scandinavia (Odin, Thor, Freya, etc.). Their names and traits, he argues, preserve echoes of the same extraterrestrial rulers who once dominated the Near East.

3. Yahweh: A Regional Commander, Not the Creator

Drawing from Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82, Biglino explains that El Elyon (the Most High) distributed lands among the lesser Elohim.
Yahweh received only the “family of Jacob,” not all Hebrews—hence his constant warfare for territory against other powers (Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines).
This portrays Yahweh as one of many regional governors, not a universal deity. Biglino notes that the wars in modern Palestine eerily mirror those ancient territorial conflicts.

4. Psalm 82 and the Plural “Elohim”

Addressing confusion about Elohim as both singular and plural, Biglino agrees with scholar Michael Heiser that the grammar is mixed—but insists the original sense is collective plurality.
“The scholars know what is plural and what is singular,” he says. “Families don’t know Hebrew—so they read singular even when the verb is plural.”
For him, Elohim meant “the powerful ones”—a group acting in concert—later homogenized into “God” through deliberate theological editing.

5. The Great Mistranslation — From Interlinear Truth to Church Doctrine

Biglino recounts his years translating 17 interlinear Hebrew texts for the Vatican’s top publisher, designed for university theologians. Those editions rendered every word literally—showing plurals where family Bibles show singulars.
He later resigned, he says, because he could no longer support “false translations used to maintain monotheism.”
He now urges readers to use interlinear Bibles and Hebrew-Greek lexicons to strip away centuries of doctrinal distortion.

6. Where Are the Female Elohim?

When asked why the Bible’s gods are male, Biglino points to archaeological finds naming Asherah, the consort of Yahweh, revered at Elephantine Island and within Solomon’s temple.
He argues the priestly editors erased the feminine powers to impose patriarchal Yahwism.
Other cultures—Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu—retained their goddesses, but Israel’s redactors deleted them.
Paul Wallis adds that Jeremiah records how the people loved Asherah but “rejected the laws of Yahweh.”
For Biglino, the survival of even one female name proves that an entire pantheon once existed.

7. The Garden of Eden — No Apple, No Original Sin

Biglino corrects the famous image: the fruit in Genesis was not an apple. When translated into Latin, “malum” meant both evil and apple, causing centuries of confusion.
He also highlights a textual contradiction—only one tree is ever said to stand “in the center of the garden,” implying that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge were originally one.

Wallis connects this to Sumerian parallels where humanity is upgraded by gods through food and drink. He likens the “forbidden fruit” to early psychoactive or fermented substances that sparked higher cognition—the same theme Plato preserves through his Eleusinian and Dionysian “drinks of wisdom.”

8. No Creator God in the Bible

Biglino closes with a theological bombshell:
“The Bible does not speak of a Creator God. The verb baraʾ does not mean ‘to create,’ but ‘to intervene in a pre-existing situation to modify it.’”
Genesis, he argues, describes terraforming after a cataclysm, not creation from nothing. The Elohim “arrived and re-organized the Earth,” much as other world myths recount powerful beings rehabilitating a ruined planet.
He stresses: “I do not deny God’s existence—but that book does not speak of Him.”

9. Biglino’s Latest Work — “The Gods of the Bible”

In his book Gods of the Bible, Biglino explores:

• The meaning of Elohim, Ruach, and Adam as biological and technological terms.

• The fall as a human rebellion against control, not moral sin.

• The era when humans “went back and forth with the Elohim.”

• The giants, the birth of monotheism, and the “drug of the gods” (fermented elixirs used by the ancients).

• The angelic “messengers,” the kerubim (mechanical guardians), and the anointing oils as literal antiseptics for contact with non-human beings.

The Takeaway

Biglino’s message is consistent and radical:
The Old Testament is not about one invisible God but about multiple tangible beings—male and female—who managed humanity, altered our biology, and divided the Earth.
Through mistranslation and censorship, their history became theology.
By returning to the literal Hebrew, he invites readers to recover the memory of contact, not worship—of a forgotten past when humans lived among the “powerful ones” who shaped civilization itself.

Video 7 Summary — The Descent of the Elohim and the Age of Enoch

In this video, Mauro Biglino opens what he calls “a journey through time and space” into the Adamic era — a period described in both the Bible and the apocrypha, where beings called Elohim actively shaped early humanity. Drawing on Genesis, Hebrew exegesis, and the Book of the Watchers, Biglino reconstructs the genealogy of the first humans and the mysterious “great descent” that produced the hybrid generations before the Flood.

1. The Genealogy of the Adamites — A Living Overlap, Not a Line

Biglino begins with a simple observation that reshapes Genesis: the patriarchs’ long lives mean they were contemporaries, not a neat sequence.
Adam, living 930 years, overlapped with Seth, Enosh, Qenan, Mahalalel, Yared, and even Lamech (Noah’s father). This means early humanity was not a handful of figures but a thriving Adamite population of hundreds or thousands, all descended from the first engineered pair.

Each patriarch is said to have had “other sons and daughters,” implying a society, not an isolated family. Biglino suggests they lived in the same region — the controlled agricultural “Eden zone” — under ongoing Elohim supervision.

2. Cain’s Fear — A World Already Populated

When Cain laments that “whoever finds me will kill me,” Biglino asks the logical question: Who else was there?
Either Adam and Eve had other children, or — as the genetic-engineering hypothesis holds — non-Adamic humans already existed outside Eden.

Cain’s fear, then, reveals contact between the specially created Adamites and earlier, less advanced hominid peoples.

Rabbinic commentator Rashi supports the idea of complex reproduction: he notes that Cain was born with one twin sister and Abel with two — a pattern Biglino links to assisted conception by the Elohim, since multiple births often accompany artificial fertilization.

3. Seth — Born “in the Image and Likeness”

Only Seth’s birth repeats the divine formula used for Adam: “in his image and likeness.”
For Biglino, this linguistic duplication implies a renewed intervention, another act of bio-engineering to “upgrade” the human line after Cain’s exile. Seth’s conception marks a continuity of genetic manipulation, ensuring that the Adamite bloodline stayed distinct.

4. Enosh — The First Time the Name Yahweh Appears

In Genesis 4:26, during Enosh’s lifetime, “people began to call upon the name of Yahweh.”
This suggests that in the time of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Seth, Yahweh was not yet known.

Biglino infers that Yahweh entered the scene later — a military-type Elohim, invoked only when direct control or warfare became necessary. For roughly 235 years, the Adamites were guided by other Elohim, the agricultural and scientific overseers of Gan Eden. Yahweh’s appearance marks a change of administration, not the dawn of religion.

5. Yared — The Name That Means “Descent”

Yared’s name derives from a Hebrew root meaning “to descend,” and Biglino sees this as a clue to a major celestial event remembered in his era.

While Genesis gives few details, the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch) fills the gap: during Yared’s lifetime, two hundred “sons of the Elohim” descended upon Mount Hermon and took human women. Their leader Semeyaza feared punishment, but the group swore an oath to act together.

This, Biglino argues, is the “great descent” encoded in Yared’s name — the moment when divine-human contact turned physical and uncontrolled.

6. The Interbreeding of the “Watchers”

According to Enoch’s text, the Watchers took “as many women as they wished” and taught forbidden knowledge meant only for the Elohim.
Jewish commentator Rashi elaborates shockingly: these powerful beings invoked jus primae noctis, taking newly married women first, and even “males and animals.”

For Biglino, such passages record the moral collapse that triggered the coming Flood — a hybrid population born from cross-species unions initiated by these rebel Elohim.

7. The Age of Enoch — Taken, Not Dead

Yared’s son Enoch lives 365 years and then “is no more, for the Elohim took him.”
Unlike other patriarchs, his death is never recorded — he is removed alive, like later figures Elijah and Moses.
Biglino interprets this literally: Enoch was transported off-planet, possibly to the base of his celestial instructors. The Book of Enoch describes detailed journeys “back and forth with the Elohim,” supporting the idea of sustained physical contact.

8. Reading the Texts Literally — The Method Behind It All

Biglino closes by reminding viewers that his approach is simple yet radical:
If we pretend the ancient authors meant exactly what they wrote — without allegory — the Bible becomes a chronicle of real events, not myth.

Thus, the genealogies, long lifespans, and apocryphal descents all describe a managed human experiment, overseen by technologically advanced beings whose rivalries and interventions shaped the early Earth.

The Takeaway

This episode bridges Genesis with 1 Enoch to reconstruct the pre-Flood civilization as a living, engineered world:

• Adamites multiply under Elohim oversight;

• Yahweh emerges later as a regional warlord;

• the Watchers descend, mate, and corrupt the program;

• and Enoch, the hybrid intermediary, is removed before catastrophe.

By reading the ancient texts literally, Biglino invites us to see the Bible not as theology but as a memory of contact — a record of genetic creation, celestial descent, and the long-forgotten age when humans and “the powerful ones” walked the same Earth.

Video 8 Summary — “The Spirit of God” Is Not What You Think It Is

In this dialogue between Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis, the two scholars revisit one of the most sacred and misunderstood phrases in the Bible: “The Spirit of God.”
Drawing from Hebrew linguistics, Sumerian parallels, and cross-cultural myths, they argue that ruach Elohim—traditionally rendered “Spirit of God”—was never a mystical spirit but a technological phenomenon: a device, vehicle, or wind-producing craft used by the Elohim during the terraforming of Earth.

1. Biglino’s Approach — The Problem of Dogmatic Translation

Biglino begins by addressing how theology has imposed spiritual meanings where the Hebrew text is concrete and descriptive. The term ruach (ר֫וּחַ) appears in Genesis 1:2—“the Spirit of God hovered over the waters”—but, he notes, ruach literally means wind, air in motion, or “something that moves through the air.”

The verb merahepet—translated “hovered”—describes the flight of a hawk, gliding motionless while riding air currents. Combined, these terms paint a picture not of divine presence but of an object or force physically hovering above the waters—limited in space and movement, not omnipresent like a spirit.

2. “Ruach” — Concrete Meaning Before Theology

Biglino emphasizes that ancient Hebrew is a physical language, not an abstract one.
In Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, the same verb describes the fluttering or trembling of an eagle. Thus, Genesis describes a mechanical or aerodynamic hovering, not metaphysical motion.

He insists that ruach Elohim should be understood as “the wind or device of the Elohim”, a local and observable phenomenon—far from the omnipresent “Spirit of God” of later theology.

3. Ezekiel’s “Vision” — Seeing the Ruach in Action

In Ezekiel 1, the prophet reports a concrete sighting:

“A storm wind came out of the north, a great cloud with fire flashing back and forth, and brightness around it.”

Biglino notes that Ezekiel gives dates, locations, and sensory details—signs of a literal event. The “wind” comes from the north, over the River Kebar, producing fire, sound, and rotation—clear physical markers of a flying craft.

He highlights that the Hebrew mareh, often translated “vision,” actually means “what is seen with one’s own eyes.” Thus, Ezekiel wasn’t dreaming; he was witnessing a machine—a “ruach” that emitted light, fire, and air turbulence, much like a modern aircraft.

4. Elijah’s Ascent — The “Ruach of Yahweh” as Transport

The second major example comes from 2 Kings 2, where Elijah is taken to heaven “by a whirlwind.” Biglino notes that the episode is anticipated by everyone present: disciples, witnesses, and Elijah himself all know the event is scheduled.

When the fiery chariot appears, Elijah ascends visibly into the sky. His disciples search for him for three days, believing the “ruach of Yahweh” might have dropped him onto a mountain or valley.
For Biglino, this eliminates any mystical interpretation: it was a planned extraction via flying device, described in the only language the ancients possessed.

5. The Linguistic Evidence — What “Ruach” Really Means

Biglino cites Dr. Jeff Benner (Ancient Hebrew Research Center) and Rabbi Matityahu Clark, who trace ruach to roots meaning “open space,” “movement,” and “traveler.”
It refers to a thing that follows a set path, like the moon or wind—consistent with a flying mechanism or aerodynamic movement, not a ghostly essence.

He demonstrates the polysemic nature of words by showing how English “spirit” varies by context (“team spirit,” “spirit of the law,” “distilled spirits”). Likewise, Hebrew ruach shifts meaning by context, but translators froze it into one theological meaning, distorting ancient realism into doctrine.

6. Paul Wallis Expands — The Ruach as Ancient Technology

Wallis builds on Biglino’s linguistic base, proposing that in Genesis 1, ruach Elohim refers to a technological device that “creates great blasts of wind” to terraform the flooded Earth.
He compares the Genesis scene to creation myths worldwide:

• Mayan Popol Vuh: Progenitors hover over dark floodwaters before reshaping the land.

• Philippine myth: A hawk hovers above the waters, using its wings to create vortices of air that separate sea from land.

• Sumerian Enuma Elish: Four winds separate the salt waters from the fresh, preparing the planet for life.

Across these traditions, the same image recurs: a hovering entity manipulating wind to separate waters and form dry land. Genesis preserves this memory under the label ruach—a device “hovering like a hawk,” engaged in planetary recovery.

7. “Ruach” and “Kavod” — Two Words for the Same Craft

Wallis points out that Ezekiel uses ruach and kavod interchangeably.
Kavod—translated “glory”—was described as a heavy, metallic, glass-like vehicle with seats, sound, propulsion, and wheels. NASA even patented a similar “omnidirectional wheel” in 1974.
Thus, ruach and kavod both signify physical craft technology, not spiritual manifestations.

Ezekiel “climbs into” the ruach, is carried in it, and observes its movement through air and wind—proof that ruach denotes machine-based flight, not metaphysical breath.

8. The Redaction — How Technology Became Theology

Wallis situates the confusion in 6th-century BCE redaction.
During the Babylonian exile, Hebrew editors consolidated diverse texts into a monotheistic narrative, erasing references to multiple beings and their devices.
This “cleanup” paralleled King Josiah’s 7th-century reforms, which destroyed Asherah temples and artifacts of other deities.

By mistranslating terms like Elohim, Ruach, and Kavod, the editors recast historical contact events as spiritual allegories, replacing ancient technology with divine mystery.

9. The “Ruach” as a Clue to Lost Memory

For Wallis, ruach is a “smoking gun” word. Tracing its evolution reveals how physical events became spiritualized:

• In Genesis, ruach terraforms the planet.

• In Ezekiel, ruach is a transport craft.

• In Psalms, it becomes “the Holy Spirit.”

Each layer conceals the previous one.
He urges that translators should leave such words untranslated, allowing modern readers to watch their behavior in context and recover the lost memory of contact between early humans and advanced visitors.

10. The Broader Implication — Our Forgotten Origins

Both scholars conclude that the Bible’s earliest layers are not about invisible divinity but visible intervention.
What theology later called “Spirit,” “Glory,” and “God” were once descriptions of aerial craft, wind-making devices, and beings from elsewhere who shaped Earth and humanity.

Recovering the original meanings of ruach and kavod could restore an ancient awareness: that human civilization began under the tutelage of technologically superior visitors, remembered through language that later ages turned into metaphor.

The Takeaway

Biglino and Wallis’s collaboration reveals a radical re-reading of Scripture:

• Ruach Elohim = wind-device of the Elohim, not Holy Spirit.

• Kavod Yahweh = metal-glass craft, not divine glory.

• Genesis 1 describes terraforming, not creation ex nihilo.

• The Bible’s “visions” are eyewitness reports, not dreams.

• Redaction and mistranslation turned paleo-contact into theology.

Their message: the sacred texts preserve technical and historical memory of our origins. To read them literally is not to demystify faith—but to recover the forgotten history of human contact with the “powerful ones” who came before.

Video 9 Summary — The Kavod: When “The Glory of God” Meant Technology

In this dialogue between Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis, the scholars examine the mysterious Hebrew word kavod—translated for centuries as “the Glory of God.” Through linguistic and contextual analysis, they reveal that kavod never described an invisible spiritual aura, but rather a heavy, physical, and radiant craft: a vehicle of the Elohim, consistent with eyewitness descriptions in Exodus and Ezekiel.

1. Redefining the “Glory of God”

Biglino begins by clarifying that kavod comes from the Hebrew root kbd, meaning “to be heavy, to have weight, to be substantial.”
Greek translators of the 3rd century BCE rendered it as doxa (“glory”), but this reflected their theological bias, not the original meaning.

He argues that kavod was mistranslated because translators assumed the Elohim were divine beings rather than physical entities with technology. The word’s literal meaning—something heavy, honorable, and powerful—better fits a craft or device than a spiritual concept.

2. The Concrete Nature of the Kavod

Biglino lists numerous biblical verses where kavod, ruach (wind/device), and keruvim (cherubim) appear together—each describing flying or radiant machines rather than angelic spirits.

The most striking example comes from Exodus 33, where Moses demands proof of Yahweh’s power:

“Show me your glory.”

Yahweh warns Moses that the event could kill him. Moses must stand in a rock cleft as the kavod passes—he may only see its rear, not its front. No one or animal is allowed on the mountain during its arrival, and afterward Moses descends with a burned, radiant face, as though exposed to intense radiation.

Biglino notes that this makes no sense if “glory” is spiritual—but fits perfectly if kavod refers to a radiant, dangerous vehicle that emits energy, heat, and sound.

3. Witnessing the Object — The Kavod in Exodus and Ezekiel

Other passages confirm the kavod as a visible, localized object:

• In Exodus 16, the people look upward into the sky and see the kavod appear “in the cloud.”

• In Ezekiel 3 and 10, the kavod is said to rise from the ground, move across the temple, and land on a mountain east of the city.

• It emits a great noise, shakes the earth, and produces light under it—matching modern descriptions of aircraft or rockets.

Biglino references Hebrew scholar Emmanuel Tov, who confirms that the correct reading of berum in Ezekiel means “to rise from the ground”—not “to be blessed.” Thus, the text explicitly describes a machine lifting off.

4. The Cherubim — Flying Machines, Not Angels

When Ezekiel describes the keruvim accompanying the kavod, he notes that their wings make deafening sounds “heard even outside the temple walls.”
Their function is mechanical, not symbolic—they are aerial vehicles, possibly part of the kavod’s propulsion system.

The kavod stands, rises, hovers, and moves directionally, implying engineering precision, not divine abstraction.

5. What Scholars and Dictionaries Say

Biglino cites Dr. Jeff Benner, founder of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, who defines the original meaning of kavod as:

“Battle armaments — heavy weapons or defenses of war.”

This literal sense aligns with its usage in Exodus 16, where Israel witnesses “the armament of Yahweh” — the same device that fought the Egyptians.

Thus, kavod describes heavy weaponry or a war vehicle, a term later spiritualized into “glory” by theologians who misunderstood its ancient context.

6. Paul Wallis — The Glory That Launches Like a Craft

Wallis takes the linguistic evidence further, arguing that the kavod in Exodus behaves exactly like launching heavy equipment.
He notes that Yahweh warns Moses not to stand “face to face” (Hebrew paneh, literally “in the open”) during the event.
Wallis translates Yahweh’s warning as:

“You cannot be out in the open when the heavy thing launches—it will kill you.”

He compares this to a space shuttle launch, where even technicians must shelter miles away behind concrete. The smoke, heat, and vibration Moses witnesses mirror a rocket lift-off, not a mystical apparition.

7. Ezekiel’s Detailed Eyewitness Account

Wallis continues with Ezekiel 1, which describes:

“A storm wind from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing and brightness all around it.”

Inside are four “living beings” with human form, each accompanied by wheels within wheels that move in all directions without turning.
NASA engineer Josef Blumrich famously confirmed that Ezekiel’s wheel design was mechanically feasible, even patenting a similar omnidirectional wheel used on Mars rovers.

Ezekiel’s kavod makes “the sound of many waters,” emits light like amber, and carries him from place to place. The prophet even describes textures like sapphire and crystal, a canopy, and a pilot who looks human—details consistent with a physical craft interior.

8. The Ruach and Kavod — One Mechanism, Two Words

In Ezekiel 3, the ruach (“wind” or “device”) lifts Ezekiel and carries him within the same structure he calls the kavod.
Wallis points out that the verbs for entering, rising, and moving are mechanical actions, not mystical ones.
Thus, ruach (movement) and kavod (craft) describe two aspects of one machine—its propulsion and body.

9. The Linguistic Breakthrough

Wallis suggests translators should leave key Hebrew words untranslated—kavod, ruach, tov, paneh—to observe their behavior directly in the text.
If we read them without theological filters, he says, the picture is clear: ancient witnesses described powerful technology that emitted fire, sound, and radiation—phenomena our ancestors could only frame as “the glory of God.”

10. The Larger Implication

Both scholars agree that mistranslating trauma as theology has had immense consequences.
By rebranding real encounters with Elohim as divine revelation, later editors introduced images of a jealous, warlike God to justify centuries of religious violence.

Yet the fidelity of the Hebrew manuscripts allows modern readers to peel back the layers and glimpse humanity’s forgotten contact with advanced beings.
The Glory of God, they conclude, was not a metaphor for holiness—it was a flying, radiant machine that once descended among men.

The Takeaway

Biglino and Wallis propose that behind the Bible’s “glory” lies technology mistaken for divinity:

• Kavod = heavy craft or armament, not spiritual light.

• Ruach = propulsion or movement system, not “Spirit.”

• Keruvim = mechanical flyers or escorts, not angels.

• Moses and Ezekiel were eyewitnesses, not mystics.

• Later redactors spiritualized physical encounters into theology.

Their conclusion is bold but consistent: the Bible’s oldest layers record a human-technological relationship with the Elohim, later veiled in metaphor but still visible in the original Hebrew text—a linguistic fossil of humanity’s earliest contact with the “powerful ones.”

ChatGPT said:

Video 10 Summary — Olam: The Hidden Dimension and the Gates of the Unknown

In this episode, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis uncover the true meaning of the Hebrew word Olam—long mistranslated as “eternity.” Through careful linguistic and theological analysis, they demonstrate that Olam does not refer to infinite time, but rather to an unknown realm or dimension beyond human perception. This redefinition radically shifts the understanding of biblical cosmology, suggesting that the Scriptures may reference interdimensional worlds, portals, and contact with advanced civilizations.

1. The Problem with Translating Yahweh as “The Eternal One”

Biglino opens by challenging a common translation error:

The Hebrew name Yahweh is often rendered as “The Eternal One.”

He points out that no such phrase exists in the Hebrew text. Translators introduced it because theology assumed that if Yahweh is God, then He must be eternal. This interpretive leap imposed a metaphysical idea on a concrete term.

Biglino insists: “This is not translation—it is invention.” The same logic applies to the word Olam, which Bibles consistently translate as eternity, despite Hebrew dictionaries explicitly warning against it.

2. What Olam Actually Means

In ancient Hebrew, Olam literally means “the unknown,” “that which is hidden,” or “that which lies beyond.”
It does not refer to endless time but to an undefined space or a realm beyond knowledge.

Biglino cites linguistic authorities, including Protestant scholars who affirm that Semitic languages lack abstract concepts like eternity or immortality. Thus, Olam represents a place or dimension unknown to man, not a time without end.

In the Talmud, the plural Olamim is used to mean “worlds” or “universes.” Hence, when Scripture says “Lord of Olam,” it could equally mean “Lord of the Unknown Realms” or “Ruler of the Worlds.”

3. Theology Built on Mistranslation

Theologians, says Biglino, built centuries of debate on invented definitions—arguing over “eternity” in verses where the word simply denotes “the unknown.”

For example, Psalm 24:7–10 says:

“Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, you everlasting (Olam) doors, that the King of Glory (Kavod) may enter.”

Scholars have long argued whether these “eternal gates” refer to heaven or time itself. But, Biglino explains, if Olam means “unknown,” then these are gates to the unknown—portals to another realm through which the “King with his Kavod” (his radiant craft) enters.

4. Olam as a Physical, Not Temporal, Concept

Biglino illustrates that Olam has spatial, not temporal, significance. It identifies unseen domains, possibly celestial or interdimensional.
He connects this with Genesis 2:8, which describes Yahweh “planting a garden in Eden miqedem,” usually translated “in the east,” but literally meaning “from what came before.”

This suggests the Elohim created Eden based on earlier models—implying a civilization that existed before ours, possibly of a higher technological class.

5. Science, the Cosmos, and the Elohim

To ground this interpretation, Biglino references Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, head of the Galileo Project, who explores the possibility of Class A civilizations capable of creating universes in laboratories.
Loeb classifies humanity as Class C or D, still bound to planetary survival, whereas Class A can manipulate cosmic conditions themselves.

Biglino notes that this scientific model aligns eerily with biblical depictions of the Elohim—beings who “descend from that which came before” (miqedem) to engineer life on Earth.
Hence, the Elohim may represent higher-dimensional beings operating from the Olam—the unknown realms beyond our perception.

6. Monsignor Balducci and the Vatican’s Quiet Acknowledgment

Biglino recalls Vatican theologian Monsignor Corrado Balducci, who argued that Psalm 24 reveals “evidence of other inhabited worlds.”
The Psalm distinguishes between “the inhabitants of the Earth” and “those who dwell elsewhere,” implying a plurality of intelligent species across the cosmos.

Balducci, who studied extraterrestrial contact phenomena on behalf of the Vatican, stated that such experiences were not demonic but encounters with other forms of life—a position that harmonizes with the linguistic meaning of Olam.

7. Paul Wallis — Olam as Dimensional Language

Wallis expands Biglino’s argument, suggesting that Olam describes other dimensions adjacent to ours.
He compares this to myths of:

• The Celtic “Sidhe”, a parallel realm influencing human life.

• The Aboriginal Dreamtime, an overlapping reality accessible through ritual.

• The Norse worlds, invisible yet coexistent with our own.

Across cultures, humanity remembered an unseen layer of existence—a “beyond” affecting the physical world. In Hebrew cosmology, that “beyond” was the Olam.

8. Scriptural Clues — Olam as “The Beyond”

Wallis examines Hebrew passages where Olam appears with temporal nuance but never meaning “eternity”:

• Isaiah 42:14: “I have held my peace for a time (Olam), but now I cry out.” → Here, Olam means a concealed duration, not infinite time.

• Isaiah 32: Cities will be deserted “for a time (Olam)” until the Ruach descends → again, a hidden interval, not forever.

• Ecclesiastes 3:11: “He has set Olam in their hearts, yet no one can find out what the Powerful Ones have done from beginning to end.”

This last verse, Wallis explains, encapsulates the mystery: humanity carries within it the awareness of the unknown—a longing for the hidden realms of the Olam.

9. Parallel Universes and Biblical Portals

Returning to Psalm 24, Wallis connects the “Doors of Olam” with the “King of Kavod” who enters through them.
If Kavod (as shown in earlier videos) refers to a radiant, heavy craft, then Psalm 24 may describe a stargate or wormhole—a literal gateway through which the Elohim’s craft enter from another realm.

He even compares this to Genesis 11 and the Tower of Babel, whose Hebrew term Bab-El means “Gateway of the Elohim.” Both texts, he suggests, hint at ancient portal technology once used for interdimensional travel.

10. The Broader Implications — Science Meets Theology

Both scholars conclude that the Bible’s mistranslations have obscured a much older memory—a record of contact with higher-dimensional beings.
By restoring the literal meanings of Elohim, Kavod, Ruach, and Olam, Scripture transforms from theology into cosmic history:
a record of interactions between humanity and advanced intelligences who traversed the gates of the unknown.

Biglino and Wallis propose a new model of interpretation: one in which science, astronomy, and ancient texts collaborate to rediscover the truth of our origins.

The Takeaway

• Olam means “unknown realm”, not “eternity.”

• The Bible’s “eternal doors” are gates to other dimensions.

• Yahweh was not “The Eternal One,” but a being from beyond—a powerful Elohim tied to a specific domain.

• The Elohim operated from the Olam, possibly through portal or stargate technology.

• Psalm 24 and Genesis 11 preserve ancient memories of dimensional contact later disguised as divine revelation.

Biglino and Wallis’ conclusion is revolutionary: the Bible, read literally and free of dogma, does not merely speak of God and eternity—it encodes the science of the unknown, the memory of beings who moved between worlds, and the gateways they used to reach us.

Video 11 Summary — The Enigma of Yahweh: A Name from Another World

In this session, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis examine the most sacred and mysterious name in the Bible: Yahweh.
Far from the universal “God” of later theology, they reveal Yahweh as a specific being among the Elohim—a powerful entity whose name, language, and origin remain unknown. By reanalyzing the original Hebrew, they show that the name YHWH was likely a foreign word, introduced from an earlier civilization and later reinterpreted by monotheistic editors.

1. Why the Vatican Banned the Name “Yahweh”

Biglino begins by reminding viewers that in 2008, the Vatican sent a global directive instructing churches not to pronounce the name “Yahweh” in liturgy.
Officially, the Church claimed it was out of “respect for Jewish tradition,” but Biglino points out the irony:

“If Yahweh were truly God the Father, why forbid his name?”

The prohibition reveals uncertainty about the name’s authenticity and meaning. Even early Jews replaced it with Adonai (“the Lord”) because it was considered unpronounceable.
Over time, this substitution became standard—thus English Bibles render YHWH as “the Lord” or “the Eternal.”

2. The Linguistic Problem — What Does “Yahweh” Actually Mean?

No one knows.
Biglino explains that the Hebrew language didn’t yet exist when Moses allegedly heard the name.
Therefore, Moses could not have received it in Hebrew—it might have been Egyptian (since Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s court) or from another civilization altogether.

The tetragrammaton YHWH was written without vowels, and the vowels were not added until centuries later (6th–9th century CE). By then, the pronunciation was long forgotten, leaving the meaning permanently obscured.

3. “I Am Who I Am” — The Misinterpreted Dialogue

In Exodus 3, Moses encounters a mysterious being who calls himself YHWH.
When Moses asks his name, the being answers:

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” — translated as “I am who I am.”

However, Hebrew grammar makes this future tense, meaning:

“I will be who I will be” or “I will become what I choose to become.”

Biglino notes that scholars have proposed every possible variation—“I am what I was,” “I will be what I am,” etc.—proving that no one actually knows what was meant.
He even suggests the being’s tone could have been impatient, as if saying:

“It doesn’t matter who I am—mind your own business.”

The meaning, then, was not theological but evasive, an encounter between Moses and a powerful but unknown entity.

4. The Name as a Foreign Insertion

The text later says:

“This is my name forever; this is my memorial to all generations.”

But Biglino highlights that this statement was written centuries later, when Yahweh’s name had already become sacred.
He argues that the term YHWH may have originally been an interjection—something like “It’s him!”—used by witnesses seeing the being arrive in a fiery descent. Over time, that exclamation became formalized as a divine name.

Because the true origin is lost, Biglino insists:

“If we don’t know what Yahweh means, we should not translate it.
‘The Lord’ and ‘The Eternal’ are invented titles.”

5. Moses and the Unknown Caller

Paul Wallis continues:
When Moses first encounters Yahweh, he has no idea who he’s talking to.
It’s as if he receives a phone call from a number labeled “Unknown.” He hears a voice, sees a fire, but cannot see the speaker.

This confusion shows that Yahweh was not the known God of Moses’ ancestors.
Later editors, centuries after Moses, retroactively inserted the name Yahweh throughout earlier stories—making it seem that this being was always the God of Israel.

6. Redaction: How Yahweh Became “God”

Wallis explains that by the 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian Exile, Hebrew editors reshaped their scriptures to teach strict monotheism.
They “pasted” Yahweh’s name across older Sumerian and Canaanite texts that had once spoken of multiple Elohim—each a distinct “powerful one.”

This explains why Yahweh’s name appears in Genesis, long before Moses “learns” it in Exodus.
It was simply inserted later, creating the illusion of a single God from the beginning.

7. Yahweh Among the Elohim

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh identifies himself as one of many Elohim—not the only one.
Examples include:

• Genesis 11 (Tower of Babel): “Come, let us go down and confuse their language.”

• The Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other Elohim before me.”

• Joshua 24: “Do not serve the Elohim of Egypt or your ancestors; serve only Yahweh.”

Each passage implies multiple gods or beings, not one omnipotent deity. Yahweh demands exclusive loyalty, suggesting rivalry, not universal divinity.

8. A Loanword from Another Civilization

Wallis compares Yahweh to a loanword—a foreign term absorbed into another language without translation.
Just as Italian immigrants once adopted the English word “shovel” into Sicilian as “chavalo,” so ancient scribes adopted YHWH—a sound with no Hebrew roots.

It entered Hebrew texts phonetically, using local spelling conventions but retaining an alien origin.
Hence, Yahweh is likely not a Hebrew word at all but a name—or sound—brought from elsewhere.

9. Parallels in Global Mythology

Wallis notes that across the world, ancient cultures remember non-human beings who ruled early humanity.
Their names often share similar phonetics:

• Quetzalcoatl (Mesoamerica)

• Kukulkan (Maya)

• Koka (Iberia)

• Bukonkis (Caucasus)

• Akhuchu (China)

Many of these beings are described as serpent-like, feathered, fiery, or capable of flight—and as demanding offerings of gold, cattle, and virgins.

These same traits appear in Yahweh’s actions:

• In Numbers 31, Yahweh demands gold, livestock, and virgin girls as tribute after battle.
  This aligns him not with a formless creator, but with ancient sky beings known across civilizations.

10. The Pivot from Non-Human to Human Rule

Wallis points out a global pattern:
Ancient societies eventually rejected rule by non-human overlords in favor of human kings and queens.
This transition appears in:

• Sumerian epics, where Gilgamesh (half-divine) bridges two worlds.

• African traditions, where power shifts from the Ojisu to the Oba.

• 1 Samuel 8, where Israelites tell Yahweh’s prophet, “We want a human king.”

If Yahweh were truly God Almighty, that demand makes no sense. But if Yahweh was a powerful, non-human being, the story suddenly fits global mythic patterns of humanity asserting independence from their “sky rulers.”

11. The Jealous God of Ekron and the Fall of Saul

Wallis cites two revealing cases:

• King Ahaziah consults the “Elohim of Ekron” for healing; Yahweh angrily asks, “Is there no Elohim in Israel?”—proving he is one among others.

• King Saul brings Yahweh gold, animals, and captives after battle—but Yahweh, furious, demands total destruction. When Saul disobeys, Yahweh drives him insane until he kills himself.

Such behavior, Wallis argues, is not divine benevolence but the volatile conduct of a territorial being demanding absolute obedience—like the “gods” of older mythologies.

12. Yahweh as One Among Many “Powerful Ones”

The Hebrew Bible’s deeper layer describes a world teeming with beings—the Elohim, El Elyon, Yahweh, and others—each with distinct territories, personalities, and rivalries.
Only later redactors merged them into one universal “God.”

By restoring the literal meanings of these names, we rediscover a forgotten prehistory: an era when humanity was ruled, taught, and sometimes enslaved by non-human powers.

The Takeaway

• Yahweh was not originally a universal God, but a foreign, non-human being—one of the Elohim.

• His name, YHWH, has no Hebrew origin, likely imported from another civilization.

• Moses did not know this being and received an evasive, cryptic answer to his question.

• Later editors retroactively rebranded Yahweh as God, rewriting a history of contact into a theology of worship.

• The Bible, stripped of later dogma, preserves the memory of humanity’s interaction with powerful sky-beings—our ancient “governors” before the dawn of human kingship.

Biglino and Wallis conclude:
To respect the text is to read it literally.
And when we do, Yahweh ceases to be an eternal abstraction—he becomes a tangible presence from another world, remembered in fire, flight, and sound.

Video 12 Summary — Elyon: The Commander of the Elohim

In this second installment of the Biglino–Wallis series, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis investigate the Hebrew term Elyon, commonly translated as “The Most High.”
They demonstrate that the word has been deeply mistranslated and mythologized, concealing an older, more concrete meaning: Elyon was not a metaphysical God, but a commanding being—superior to other Elohim who governed the nations of the ancient world.
The discussion exposes how later theological editors reshaped a multi-being cosmology into a seamless monotheistic story, obscuring humanity’s early contact with what the texts call “the Powerful Ones.”

1. Rethinking Biblical Grammar and Ideology

Biglino begins by reminding viewers that the Hebrew Bible was not written with modern grammar in mind but with ideological intent.
He stresses that trying to impose grammatical rules onto the text can distort its original meaning.
Instead, readers must approach it as a compilation of ancient memories later re-edited to promote monotheistic theology rather than historical accuracy.

2. The Difference Between Elohim and Elyon

The term Elohim derives from the root ʾ-l-h, meaning “powerful beings.”
By contrast, Elyon comes from ʿ-l-y, meaning “to be above.”
They are completely different words and concepts:

• Elohim is plural—“the powerful ones.”

• Elyon is singular—“the one who is above the others.”

Biglino explains that religious translators forced Elyon into a superlative abstraction (“The Most High”) when in reality it simply meant a superior or commander.

3. Elyon in the Hebrew Texts

Drawing on Professor Emmanuel Tov’s critical Hebrew analysis, Biglino notes that El, Elohim, and Yahweh are not synonyms but refer to different individuals or beings.
He identifies more than twenty separate Elohim mentioned in the Old Testament, each distinct.
If anyone deserved to be called “the Most High,” it would logically be Elyon—yet the word is never pluralized or given superlative treatment in Hebrew.

Instead, dictionaries like those of Dr. Jeff Benner translate Elyon simply as:

“Upper, higher than the others—he who is above.”

Benner’s pictographic reconstruction of the term shows an eye and a shepherd’s staff—symbols of oversight and authority.
Thus, Elyon means “the one who watches and governs from above.”

4. Ancient Usage — From Architecture to Geography

Biglino demonstrates that Elyon is used concretely throughout Scripture:

• In Deuteronomy 32:8, Elyon divides the nations according to the sons of the Elohim (as preserved in the Qumran scrolls)—not “the sons of Israel.”

• In Joshua 16:5, the term describes “upper Beth-Horon,” a town physically situated above another—Elyon literally meaning “upper.”

• In Ezekiel 41:7, it refers to the upper story of a building—again, a higher level, not divine transcendence.

Such practical contexts confirm that Elyon denotes position and rank, not metaphysical elevation.

5. The Commander of the Elohim

Paul Wallis builds on this, explaining that the Hebrew texts portray a hierarchy among the Elohim, presided over by Elyon—the commander or overseer.
This mirrors Sumerian mythology, where Enlil commanded the sky and Enki the Earth.
Elyon, in that sense, would be the supreme coordinator—not infinite, but senior.

Wallis connects the imagery of the eye and the staff to global mythic archetypes of watchers and shepherd-gods, beings who govern humanity from above rather than existing as formless divinity.

6. The Political Redaction of Monotheism

Wallis then situates Elyon within the political reforms of the 7th–6th centuries BCE.
During the reign of King Josiah, Jewish authorities sought to eliminate traces of polytheism and henotheism—worship of multiple or regional deities—and consolidate all power under Yahweh and the Jerusalem Temple.

The final editors of the Hebrew canon followed the same agenda:

• Cutting and pasting older scrolls to form a unified monotheistic narrative.

• Erasing rival gods and councils, while preserving faint traces in verses that still mention Elyon and other Elohim.

In short, Elyon the commander became “God Most High”, and Yahweh, once a junior Elohim, was elevated to universal status.

7. Cross-Cultural Echoes of “The One Above”

Wallis notes that nearly every ancient cosmology contains the same image: a ruler “above the waters” or “in the sky.”

• In Nigeria and Benin, the Edo myth speaks of Osanobua, “the Almighty above the waters.”

• In Mesoamerica, the Popol Vuh describes progenitors hovering over the seas.

• In Sumer, the sky-beings descend from the heights to govern humankind.

Across continents, “height” implies both physical altitude and hierarchical authority—just as Elyon means “above” in both space and status.

8. The Biblical Council of the Powerful Ones

By comparing Psalms 57 and 78, Wallis reconstructs the forgotten scene of a “Sky Council.”
The Hebrew lines originally read:

“I call to Elyon, the most senior of the Powerful Ones.”
“They remembered the Powerful Ones were their rock, and the Powerful One, the most senior, was their redeemer.”

These verses describe Elyon presiding over a council of Elohim—a ruling assembly that manages the nations of Earth.
The same council appears in 1 Kings 22 (plotting wars) and in Job 1, where “the sons of the Elohim” toy with human fate.

9. The Division of Nations

Returning to Deuteronomy 32:8, Wallis highlights the Qumran version:

“Elyon divided the nations according to the number of the sons of the Elohim.”

This portrays humanity as divided colonies, each assigned to a different ruling Power.
Elyon distributed these territories, while Yahweh was given Israel as his allotment—making him one among many subordinate commanders.

Thus, the text describes a hierarchical federation of beings, not a single universal deity.

10. Reconstructing the Ancient Picture

Together, Biglino and Wallis piece together a coherent cosmology:

• Elyon — Commander or overseer of the Elohim.

• Elohim — A council of powerful beings who managed different peoples.

• Yahweh — A regional Elohim responsible for Israel.

Over centuries, editors collapsed this layered system into the illusion of one “Most High God,” erasing the memory of a structured celestial administration.

The Takeaway

• Elyon means “the one above”—a commander, not an infinite deity.

• The Elohim were multiple powerful beings, each ruling a people.

• Yahweh was a junior Elohim, not identical with Elyon.

• Later redactors transformed this political hierarchy into monotheistic theology.

• The Bible thus preserves, beneath centuries of editing, the memory of a sky-council civilization—a federation of beings who once governed humanity from above.

Biglino and Wallis conclude that by restoring the literal Hebrew, we recover not piety but history—the record of Earth’s ancient overseers and their commander, Elyon, whose title once meant simply:
“The One Who Rules from Above.”

Video 13 Summary — The Elohim: Finally, We Know the Truth

In this opening episode of the Biglino–Wallis collaboration, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis begin their joint project to re-examine the Hebrew Bible through literal translation rather than theological interpretation. Their focus is on the most ancient and controversial word in Scripture—Elohim—which for centuries has been translated as “God.” Biglino demonstrates, however, that the term is grammatically plural and cannot honestly be rendered as a singular deity. Wallis builds on this by showing that once the word is restored to its literal form—“the powerful ones”—the stories of Genesis align with the much older Mesopotamian traditions of the Anunnaki and other “sky beings.” Together, they argue that the Bible’s earliest layer preserves a record of advanced entities interacting with early humanity, later reframed through monotheistic theology.

1. A Return to the Source

Biglino opens by explaining that the project’s purpose is not to debunk faith but to read the Bible respectfully—as the ancient authors wrote it, without adding or removing meaning. He emphasizes the uncertainty of modern scholarship when approaching the original Hebrew text:

• Hebrew itself was only reconstructed centuries after Christ—around the 9th century CE, by the Masoretic school of Tiberias.

• Earlier Hebrew, written without vowels, was a Canaanite dialect, meaning that even scholars today do not know how the original Bible was pronounced or read.

• Because of this, later translators often imposed ideological grammar rules on a text that was never meant to follow them.

Therefore, any claim of absolute accuracy in modern translation is illusory. The most honest way to read the text, he says, is literally—word for word.

2. What Does “Elohim” Really Mean?

The Hebrew term Elohim presents one of the Bible’s great paradoxes:

• It is a plural noun that takes plural verbs in the oldest manuscripts.

• Yet every major translation—from the King James and Jerusalem Bible to the Septuagint—renders it in the singular as “God.”

Even Jewish scholars acknowledge that no word in Hebrew means “God” as the modern theological concept of an omniscient, omnipotent being.
Instead, Elohim is variously translated as:

• Judges

• Legislators

• Governors

• “The Bright Ones” or “The Powerful Ones”

These are titles of function, not of essence. The Elohim were not spirits or abstractions—they were beings who ruled, judged, and created.

3. The Grammatical Problem

Biglino highlights Genesis 20:13 as an example. In this verse, Abraham says:

“When the Elohim caused me to wander from my father’s house…”

In the Hebrew, the verb “caused me to wander” is in the plural form—a grammatical fact confirmed by scholar editions of the Old Testament. Yet in family Bibles, the same verb is altered to singular form to align with monotheistic theology.

This is not a matter of opinion, Biglino insists; the Hebrew verb structure proves that Abraham refers to multiple beings, not a single God.
Thus, the theology was adjusted to fit ideology, not language.

4. How Theology Rewrote Grammar

Over the centuries, translators have forced the plural term into singular usage to defend religious orthodoxy. Every major family edition—Luther’s, the King James, the Geneva Bible, and others—reinterprets plural verbs to fit monotheism.

Even when scholarly Bibles preserve the plural verb, footnotes quietly admit:

“In Hebrew, the verb is plural.”

This double standard shows that translation has become theological interpretation. Theologians created categories such as “plural of majesty” or “plural of abstraction” to justify their decision—but such forms do not exist in biblical Hebrew.

5. The Scholarly Consensus

Biglino cites Professor Emanuel Tov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who confirms that El, Elyon, Yahweh, and Elohim represent different entities, not multiple names for one deity.
Tov’s work, along with the Qumran scrolls, reveals that the ancient texts describe an assembly of beings, consistent with Psalm 82:

“God stands in the assembly of the Elohim; He judges among the Elohim.”

This verse, left untranslated in its literal sense, clearly portrays a council of multiple powers—a divine parliament, not a single supreme being.

6. The Logic of Leaving the Word Untranslated

Given this evidence, Biglino recommends a simple, respectful approach:

• Do not translate Elohim.

• Replace “God” in your Bible with “Elohim.”

• Read the stories as the ancient writers composed them.

Doing so reveals a narrative that is far more concrete and logical—one that reads like history and administration rather than abstract theology.
The Bible, he says, becomes “a text about powerful beings who governed, created, and legislated—not a single invisible deity.”

7. Paul Wallis: The Sky Council and the Forgotten Plurality

Wallis joins the discussion, confirming that his own research in The Eden Series led him to the same conclusion. The plurality of Elohim is not a grammatical anomaly—it represents an earlier worldview.
He explains:

• The Hebrew canon preserves traces of a “Sky Council”, a governing assembly of Elohim presided over by a leading commander.

• These accounts mirror Mesopotamian and Sumerian texts, where beings like Enlil and Enki divided the Earth among themselves and directed human affairs.

• The plural verb forms in Genesis 1 (“Let us make man in our image”) make perfect sense when Elohim means powerful ones, not God.

Thus, the Hebrew Bible appears to be a condensed version of much older Mesopotamian records, rewritten to serve later religious aims.

8. The Trinity Mistake

Wallis addresses a common defense: the claim that the plural form Elohim anticipates the Christian Trinity.
He dismisses this as chronological error:

• The Trinity is a doctrine invented millennia later and has no place in the Hebrew texts.

• The redactors who added the name Yahweh to earlier Elohim passages were strict monotheists, not proto-Christians.

• This rewriting created the moral contradictions modern readers struggle with—stories where God commands genocide, destruction, and tribal favoritism.

Once the plural meaning is restored, these moral absurdities dissolve: the conflicts were not divine decrees, but rivalries among advanced beings.

9. Competing Powers in the Text

Wallis highlights verses where Yahweh himself identifies as one Elohim among others.
When a king consults the “Elohim of Ekron” for prophecy, Yahweh responds angrily:

“Is there no Elohim in Israel that you go to consult the Elohim of Ekron?”

This rivalry shows that multiple Elohim coexisted, each with their own human followers—echoing polycentric governance rather than divine unity.
Even the Ten Commandments confirm this, warning Israelites not to “serve other Elohim.” The command assumes that other Elohim were real and active, not imaginary idols.

10. Traces of Editing and Historical Suppression

By the 7th–6th centuries BCE, Israelite editors undertook a massive theological redaction, merging all these beings into one singular Yahweh.
However, grammatical evidence—the leftover plural verbs and mixed syntax—betrays the earlier structure.
The text we have today, Wallis notes, is a theological collage:
older polytheistic accounts, patched and reinterpreted through monotheistic ideology.

11. Echoes from Antiquity

Wallis and Biglino both connect the Elohim to global mythic patterns:

• Sumerian gods who “descend from the heavens.”

• Egyptian and Vedic “shining ones.”

• The “watchers” of the Book of Enoch and Mesopotamian Apkallu.

In all cases, they represent physical, advanced beings who intervened in early civilization—not metaphysical abstractions.

This, they argue, explains why the Bible reads at times like a colonial record—complete with wars, hierarchies, and territory divisions—rather than a mystical revelation.

12. The Moral Restoration

Wallis cites early Church Father Origen, who warned that taking the Elohim stories literally as “God stories” makes God appear monstrous:

“We would have to believe of God things we would not believe of the most savage of men.”

By restoring the original plural meaning, the moral contradictions vanish. The violence and rivalry in the Old Testament were not divine actions, but inter-elite conflicts among the Elohim.

13. Reading with Integrity

Both scholars end the video with a practical invitation:

• Leave the Hebrew terms in place.

• Stop forcing singular translations.

• Read the stories as they stand.

When the text is allowed to speak for itself, a new picture emerges—of humanity shaped and guided by multiple advanced beings, each with their own agendas and domains.

The Takeaway

• Elohim is plural, meaning “powerful ones,” not “God.”

• Hebrew grammar, preserved in older manuscripts, supports a council of beings, not one deity.

• The later insertion of Yahweh and the singular “God” form were theological edits, not linguistic truth.

• Reading the Bible literally—without translation bias—reveals a coherent record of ancient contact, a meeting between humanity and its cosmic overseers.

In Biglino and Wallis’s words, the Bible ceases to be merely sacred myth and becomes a chronicle of our forgotten prehistory—where the gods of old were powerful, tangible, and real.

Video 14 Summary — Ruach, Elohim, and the Courage to Think Freely

In this extended conversation on The Fifth Kind, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis turn from linguistic analysis to personal reflection. They revisit the discoveries that brought them together—the literal translation of Hebrew words like Elohim and Ruach—and explore how those discoveries are changing lives, faith, and scholarship. What begins as a discussion of translation becomes a meditation on courage, free thought, and the rediscovery of a forgotten human history.

1. Mauro Biglino — From Vatican Translator to Independent Scholar

Mauro Biglino recalls the years he spent working for San Paolo Editore, the Vatican’s official Catholic publisher in Rome. As an authorized translator, his assignment was precise: provide the literal meaning of each Hebrew word for interlinear Bibles, with absolutely no interpretation. The task was surgical. Each word had to be rendered according to its etymology alone.

That discipline shaped his entire career. It forced him to confront what the text actually said, free of theology. Over time, he realized that many familiar religious ideas—especially about “God”—were later inventions layered over far older, more concrete stories.

2. The Meaning of Ruach

One of Biglino’s favorite examples is the Hebrew word Ruach, traditionally translated as Spirit. In ancient Hebrew literature, however, the term means wind, or something moving through the air that creates wind. In modern Amharic, a daughter language of the same Semitic family, ruach still means a fan—a device that stirs the air.

For Biglino, this linguistic continuity suggests that Genesis was describing physical phenomena, not metaphysical ones. The “Spirit of God moving over the waters,” he says, originally described something flying, perhaps a craft or force producing turbulence over the flooded earth.

3. Words That Lost Their Ground

Paul Wallis, himself trained in biblical languages, adds that academic commentaries often avoid the simplest linguistic questions—especially when the literal meanings challenge church doctrine. Loanwords from Sumerian or Akkadian are explained away; plural nouns are forced into singular theology. Once those words are restored to their plain sense, the Bible suddenly lines up with global mythic memory: creation after cataclysm, flying beings over primeval waters, and humanity guided by powers from the sky.

4. Planetary Recovery and the World’s Shared Myths

Wallis points to parallels in African, Mesoamerican, and Filipino traditions. In one Filipino story, a giant bird named Tagalog hovers above the flooded planet, whipping the air with its wings to drive back the waters and reveal the land. Biglino notes that this imagery is identical to the motion of the Ruach in Genesis—wind, wings, and restoration.

To them, such parallels reveal a common memory of planetary recovery, not a purely religious creation myth. The same event seems to echo across continents: advanced beings or aerial forces reshaping the earth after a global deluge.

5. The God of the Text vs. the God of Jesus

The two scholars then address the moral tension between the “God” of the Old Testament and the loving Father described by Jesus. Wallis says every preacher feels the dissonance but most ignore it. If the Elohim were multiple powerful beings with their own rivalries, the cruelty of the Old Testament becomes understandable—it reflects politics among powers, not divine perfection.

Jesus, in Wallis’s reading, distanced himself from those beings. When he asked, “What father would give his son a serpent instead of a fish?” he was rejecting Yahweh’s violence outright. The early Christian council recorded in Acts 15 even decided that the Hebrew Law was no longer binding, yet later institutions reversed that decision to maintain control through fear.

6. Secrets in the Vatican

Both men touch on the Church’s quiet awareness of these issues. Wallis recalls that in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI asked the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to discuss “the theological implications of contact with other civilizations.” To Biglino, that request proved that the Vatican already suspects other intelligences exist—perhaps the same ones remembered in Scripture as Elohim. The topic was soon buried again, but the question had been asked: What if the beings described in Genesis were real?

7. Science Opens the Door

Their conversation turns to science. Wallis cites astronomers and biologists—Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, Leslie Orgel, Vladimir Sherbach—who have advanced theories of panspermia, suggesting life on Earth may have been seeded intentionally. For him, the line between Genesis and modern genetics is thinner than we think. Biglino agrees, saying this scientific curiosity mirrors Plato’s own teaching that the cosmos is alive and guided by higher minds.

8. Plato and the Philosophers of Contact

They revisit the Greek world, noting that Plato, Anaximander, and other early philosophers described contact between mortals and sky-beings. The Greek word apeiron, often rendered “infinite,” originally meant the primal substance from which all things arise—closer to the Hebrew afar, the dust of creation. Both languages, they argue, spoke of material origins, not metaphysical ones.

Through mistranslation, the ancients’ concrete cosmology was turned into abstract theology.

9. The Two Traditions: Fear and Love

This misunderstanding produced two opposing spiritual currents. The Elohim tradition, born of hierarchy and domination, generated fear and obedience. The teaching of Jesus, rooted in compassion and inner transformation, called humanity to freedom. History chose the first path. Empires favored the fearful God, because fear kept subjects compliant. Violence became sacred, and faith became submission.

Biglino and Wallis agree that recovering the original texts allows believers to separate the politics of the past from the spirituality of the heart.

10. Awakening in the Present Age

As their talk turns to today’s world, they sense another turning point—a “great reset” of consciousness. Humanity, they say, is again being asked to think for itself, to question inherited authority, and to rebuild its worldview from primary sources. Biglino calls his mission simple: to give people tools to think independently, to see what the text truly says and draw their own conclusions.

Wallis believes that this moment in history demands courage, not faith in institutions. Every person who changes their mind, he says, begins to change the world.

11. The Human Side of Revelation

Biglino shares how shocked he was by his sudden success. His first book, he thought, would vanish unnoticed. Instead, he was invited to give conferences across Italy and Europe—over three hundred in ten years. The response showed that people were ready for an honest reading of Scripture. Even priests attending his talks admitted their astonishment and relief: they could finally ask questions without fear of heresy.

12. Translation as Liberation

For both men, translation is not just linguistic—it is spiritual liberation. Words like Elohim and Ruach remind readers that the Bible’s earliest layer describes events in the physical world. Seeing that frees the modern mind from blind belief and opens it to a deeper, more logical wonder. The goal is not disbelief, they say, but clarity.

13. Community, Cooperation, and Global Dialogue

They reflect on how digital media has united thinkers worldwide. During the pandemic, Biglino nearly stopped his work until a friend urged him to post lectures online. The result was explosive: millions of views and a global community of independent researchers. Wallis shares a similar story—meeting his collaborator Anthony Barrett online and creating the visual documentaries that now reach audiences everywhere.

14. A Call for Courage

In closing, Wallis and Biglino thank their viewers and each other. They stress that this work is not about conspiracy or rebellion but about intellectual honesty and courage—the bravery to read ancient words as they were written and to face the consequences of their meaning. Knowledge, they insist, is not dangerous; fear is.

Biglino’s story—leaving institutional comfort to follow truth—shows that anyone can change direction at any moment. For Wallis, that example itself is sacred teaching: the translator who became a liberator.

The Takeaway

Through the literal study of Hebrew terms like Elohim and Ruach, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis uncover a vision of humanity’s origins that unites myth, history, and science. Their dialogue shows that translation can be an act of awakening—turning scripture from a code of obedience into a living record of contact, creativity, and courage.