UFOs confirmed by Burger King toys?

[agentsands77]

As they cannot get married, it would be a sin for an angel to have sexual relations with a woman, and thus, the angel would be spiritually crippled by sin.

I can't resist commenting on this. The traditional reading of the passage is that fallen, sinful angels had relations with women. So I can't see how this objection works.

While often translated as sons of God, most modern translations correct the error to show that the "sons of God" are simply godly men when used in Genesis, but in Job the phrase signifies "angel."

That doesn't mean squat, though. Sure, it's informed by contemporary scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily mean the contemporary scholarship is right. The best interpretations (like the very excellent English Standard Version) render it "Sons of God" in both places to remain faithful to the original term and thereby allow for the ambiguity of meaning rather than doing the interpretive work for the reader.

At any rate, the Genesis passage is one of the most cryptic passages in the Bible for which any of the suggested interpretations has problems. It's probably best not to argue about it, and just allow for the range of possible meaning.

 

[agentsands77]

Can anybody recall where a pic of that 13 skull thingy has shown up before. I know I've seen it somewhere, can't recall where, or if it was a still or concept design of sorts, but I've definetely seen it somewhere.

There was an add for all the Burger King toys, and it had a photograph of it. Here, I actually have it:

The designs seem very 'literal', on all the toys.

They are. They all relate to actual moments from the movies.

The sketch of the UFO is very derivative, it suggests to me that their Designers, have not seen or had access to the 'final' design of the UFO.

I think that's clear. They clearly didn't know what the "alien heads" would look like in the finished film - the crystal skulls.

I think if we do see something it'll be akin to the heavilly carved or embossed designs we've seen for other props and very rooted in mayan design and hopefully quite beautiful.

My guess is it's that stone disc we see attached to the current toy model.

 

[WillKill4Food]

I can't resist commenting on this. The traditional reading of the passage is that fallen, sinful angels had relations with women. So I can't see how this objection works.
That doesn't mean squat, though. Sure, it's informed by contemporary scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily mean the contemporary scholarship is right. The best interpretations (like the very excellent English Standard Version) render it "Sons of God" in both places to remain faithful to the original term and thereby allow for the ambiguity of meaning rather than doing the interpretive work for the reader.
At any rate, the Genesis passage is one of the most cryptic passages in the Bible for which any of the suggested interpretations has problems. It's probably best not to argue about it, and just allow for the range of possible meaning.

Typical. You find the two weakest points of an argument and tear them to shreds while ignoring the rest of the argument.
Sigh.

And, please, for the Love of God, don't double post.

 

[agentsands77]

Typical. You find the two weakest points of an argument and tear them to shreds while ignoring the rest of the argument.

That's because I don't really disagree with the rest of your argument. There are clear issues with the idea of angels, primarily spiritual beings, procreating with human beings (which you point out).

I'm not really taking a side here. I don't side with any of the interpretations. I'm generally arguing that the passage is remarkably cryptic, that each of the three main schools of interpretation on the passage are problematic, and that the ambiguity of the meaning of the text needs to be upheld.

Anyway, this is really moving off topic. So... aliens?

Anyway, I think the alien skeleton looks pretty darn cool. Can't wait to see that in the movie.

 

[WillKill4Food]

That's because I don't really disagree with the rest of your argument. There are clear issues with the idea of angels, primarily spiritual beings, procreating with human beings (which you point out).
I'm not really taking a side here. I don't side with any of the interpretations. I'm generally arguing that the passage is remarkably cryptic, that each of the three main schools of interpretation on the passage are problematic, and that the ambiguity of the meaning of the text needs to be upheld.
Anyway, this is really moving off topic. So... aliens?

Yes, but to assume that the traditional interpretation is correct. Perhaps it is, but, as you said, there are major problems with it.
Tradition is not an argument.
Traditionally, Christians believe that evolution is impossible, that it is a sin to eat meat on certain days, etc and so on. The mistakes are numerous.
Many of these views are either factually implausible or, more often, extra-Biblical. That is why I do not support them. And, my reasoning behind choosing the NIV was that most modern Christians use it, myself not being one, actually; and that it has been translated in a manner that best represents the original.
The KJV is often ambiguous, with a reason, and because of that I read it and interpret it, but do not cite it as it too often remains neutral.
I feel that the only way we can truly know the words of the Bible is by learning Hebrew, Latin, and the other languages it was written in, which I have yet to do, though I hope to do so in College.

As for aliens, well, I'd rather not see them and don't see how they are "confirmed" but rather hinted at, at best.
Remember, a deformed head is not automatically an alien head.
One of my friends has a mentally challenged brother with a head that looks just like the alien skull. Perhaps the Maya worshipped retarded people?
And, to me, the skeleton is too Close-Encounterish. Kind of frightening that the homage is so obvious.

 

[indyt]

Nice misinterpretation, there Tom.
Angels are spirits. They are not men and are not women. Thus, they have no means of reproduction, being spirits and all. And, therefore, the angels could not have spawned children with the daughters of Seth.
So, only one infallible intepretation can be brought up.
In this instance, "sons of God" means the same as the phrase "children of God." When I say I am a "Child of God" or that God is my "father," I am calling myself a believer.
The "sons of God" mentioned are the children born into the God-fearing line of Seth. The "sons of God" are the righteous men that believe in God.
The "daughters of men," however, are the worldly, sinful, seductive, heathens that are found beautiful and tempting to the sons of Seth. Often, throughout the Bible, the words "flesh" and "world" have the connotation of being sinful and things to stay away from.
So, the "sons of God" are the humans that believe in God but are tempted by the idolatrous heathen "daughters of men."

If the sons of god and daughters of men are human, then the nephlim would be normal humans. People believe in different theories concerning Gen 6. I feel the sons of God here were definitely demons. We can agree to disagree.

 

[agentsands77]

Tradition is not an argument.

Granted, and I never said it was. But I do think the traditional interpretation is as valid as the others suggested, and no more or less problematic.

And, my reasoning behind choosing the NIV was that most modern Christians use it, myself not being one, actually; and that it has been translated in a manner that best represents the original.

I don't know whether you're speaking generally or specifically in regards to that passage, but as someone with a great deal of Biblical knowledge, including direct experience with the Hebrew and Greek texts, I don't the NIV generally represents the original Biblical texts very well. When the NIV is good, it's really good, but when it's bad, it's really bad.

As for aliens, well, I'd rather not see them and don't see how they are "confirmed" but rather hinted at, at best.
Remember, a deformed head is not automatically an alien head.

Well, sure, it's not confirmed, but we have some pretty heavy hints in the direction of alien involvement (and the deformed head is one of the least convincing ones). The reasons are numerous, including, but are not limited to:
-The most credible spoiler reports all point to extraterrestrials as part of INDY IV.
-The Roswell crate that the Soviets are after in Hangar 51.
-The officially released THE INDIANA JONES HANDBOOK has a section that mentions Indy running away from aliens (all its sections are based on the movies, and it also has other KINGDOM-related sections).
-The newly released THE LOST JOURNAL OF INDIANA JONES talks about UFOs.
-These Burger King toy designs were clearly based off of UFOs, and even though they didn't have exact information they were clearly given enough to know what toys to develop given that each of the toys relates to a different movie scene.
-Frank Darabont's draft, which also had the crystal skulls/crystal skeletons McGuffin and the lost city idea was about extraterrestrials.
-In the German CINEMA interview, Lucas talks about the story direction and how the crystal skulls couldn't have come from earth and been shaped by human hands.

And, to me, the skeleton is too Close-Encounterish. Kind of frightening that the homage is so obvious.

I don't really see the CE3K homage as coming through too strongly, but different strokes for different folks.

 

[Agent Spalko]

Looks like that one really creepy CE3K with the elongated arms that comes out of the ship. Good call.

 

[Tom Cook]

I guess I opened a can of worms!

Still I think I have a valid point about the Ugha warriors being like the Nephilim. Primitive warriors who are somehow deeply related to some super-human beings which entered human history long ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Indy makes a comment about the Ugha people, suggesting that their genetic makeup is not fully human.

There is no reason for angels to have gender.

As I have pointed out, by the same logic you could argue there is no reason for God to have a gender. When the Holy Ghost impregnated St. Mary, was He without gender?

Speaking of which, that's related to why the early Church fathers, and the Jewish historian Josephus, all thought this made sense: fallen angels slept with women in order to try to disturb/overturn the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 about the 'seed of the woman' defeating Satan in the end.

You kind of skirt around the issue regarding Job 2:1, but I really like your take on Daniel 3:25. That's a good cultural/historical context to keep in mind.

I'm happy that you don't really think your interpretation is infallible. I suppose you have a sola-scriptura background? There's only one person (in my Catechism) who can claim to teach with infallibility. And tradition, according to G.K. Chesterton, gives votes to 'the democracy of the dead'. As such it is a very good argument.

 

[herr gruber]

Primitive warriors who are somehow deeply related to some super-human beings which entered human history long ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Indy makes a comment about the Ugha people, suggesting that their genetic makeup is not fully human.

Yeah. Then the Ugha folks wheel out the old chestnut that we are all descended from an intergalactic race in a not so shocking twist.

 

[Indy Black]

Back to the picture that was just posted, isn't that the figure(on the left) that's "free" once you collect six of the stickers??

....waits to collect stickers....

I like how on the human(er alien) size throne on the right the Mayan(or is it Aztec) style is worked into the piece. Anyone know which South American country the temple is located in?

 

[barranca]

There was an add for all the Burger King toys, and it had a photograph of it. Here, I actually have it:

Thanks for that but it was another image I'm sure, of the prop or a concept design.
If thats the size of the skulls (18 inches), that would make the prop about 6 feet across, that disc would then be about 24-30 inches max. Bit small for a UFO. I think the disc is a control device for the skulls.
I think/hpoe the UFO will be bigger and appear elsewhere if at all.

 

[agentsands77]

If thats the size of the skulls (18 inches), that would make the prop about 6 feet across, that disc would then be about 24-30 inches max. Bit small for a UFO.

Sure, but you can't read a toy that literally. Just like in the original toy, the UFO size ratio to the "alien heads" doesn't really make sense, but it's just a Burger King toy.

 

[barranca]

Sure, but you can't read a toy that literally. Just like in the original toy, the UFO size ratio to the "alien heads" doesn't really make sense, but it's just a Burger King toy.

Your not quite following, what I referred to was the approx sizes of the prop pic I saw. Not the Toy. that would then make the dimensions of the disc about what I described. A liitle too small for a UFO, unless the aliens have teeny weeny bodies!!

 

[agentsands77]

Your not quite following, what I referred to was the approx sizes of the prop pic I saw.

Oh, so it was a picture of the prop from the film itself? I wasn't aware that any had been released... If one has, I really want to see this picture.

 

[barranca]

Me too, it was either a pic or a concept sketch I saw.

 

[agentsands77]

Me too, it was either a pic or a concept sketch I saw.

Has anyone else seen the picture Barranca's describing?