Are these ancient petroglyphs of angels?

[00:00:00]Well, this is interesting. All right, let's see it. Either ancient civilizations were all subscribed to the same newsletter or somebody's been recycling character designs for a few thousand years.

[00:00:11]>> Or you are just somebody who does not do their due diligence and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.

[00:00:18]>> Look at this, Japan, Utah, Azerbaijan.

[00:00:21]Three completely different parts of the world separated by thousands of miles, yet they all carved figures that looked remarkably similar.

[00:00:29]Now, before someone says Photoshop or AI, these are real archaeological sites.

[00:00:33]The carvings are genuine. The question is, what were they looking at?

[00:00:38]>> They weren't looking at anything. They were creating hybrid figures, which are among the most common iconography we find from the ancient world and they go back tens of thousands of years. In fact, the oldest art that we have identified is a hybrid human {slash} animal figure. So, this kind of thing is all over the ancient world. They were not looking at anything, they were imagining things.

[00:01:06]>> Were these just symbols, ancient mythology, or were cultures around the world recording encounters with the same supernatural beings?

[00:01:13]>> No, these were not encounters with supernatural beings. These are three among tens of thousands of hybrid figures that are strewn all around the ancient world and all around the planet because combining human and other types of figures together was again incredibly common in the ancient world and also these don't line up with any supernatural entity, certainly not anything from the Bible. The cherubim had four wings, at least according to one text that gave them wings. The seraphim had six wings, at least according to one text that gives them wings. Angels are never described anywhere in the Bible as winged. And here is the earliest post-biblical depiction of an angel that we have. This is Gabriel visiting Mary. This is from the Catacomb of Priscilla, which I had the privilege of visiting last month. Unfortunately, they didn't allow us to take any pictures of anything, but this is the Annunciation.

[00:02:19]And Gabriel, as you can see, is dressed as a male-presenting human, an anthropomorphic figure, which is how angels are presented throughout the entire Bible. Uh angels don't get wings until we get into the 3rd and 4th centuries when we begin to borrow symbols from Greco-Roman mythology and use them as symbolic of the heavenly origins of these creatures as well as their speed, their ability to move about, and things like that. So, these figures don't match anything, any supernatural entity that is described anywhere in the biblical text, but they do match the hybrid figures that are imagined and are represented in iconography all over the planet and all throughout time. And in fact, these three images span thousands of years. The oldest is the Azerbaijan one, which probably dates to somewhere between 3 and 6,000 BCE.

[00:03:15]And then the Japan petroglyph dates probably to around 100 CE. And then the Utah petroglyph probably dates to around 1,000 CE. So, these come from thousands of years away from each other and from thousands of miles separated from each other.

[00:03:34]This is very, very common in the ancient world, and just plucking these three examples of a hybrid human and bird figure from the tens and tens of thousands of examples of hybrid figures from ancient iconography and petroglyphs uh doesn't demonstrate anything at all.

[00:03:54]>> Because if Genesis 6 actually happened, >> It didn't.

[00:03:58]>> if the unseen realm is real, wouldn't you expect traces of those stories to show up across different civilizations?

[00:04:05]>> Uh nothing about Genesis 6 has anything whatsoever to do with wings.

[00:04:12]So, these petroglyphs bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to Genesis 6 unless you impose the notion that angels have wings, which once again is an innovation of the post-biblical period. So, you must presuppose post-biblical traditional interpretive lenses and impose them upon Genesis 6 for there to be absolutely any link whatsoever between these petroglyphs and the story of Genesis 6, which by the way also doesn't mention angels. It talks about gods.

[00:04:51]Their interpretation as angels comes from the Septuagint and from Greco-Roman period Judaism. Their reinterpretation as angels, I should say.

[00:05:00]They're just second-tier deities according to Genesis 6. So, all we're doing is taking post-biblical traditions that didn't exist when these texts were written and originally circulated, and we're stacking them up on top of the texts and saying, "Look, we can find connections between things that we made up after these texts were written [clears throat] and these other things that have absolutely nothing to do with these texts."

[00:05:26]>> I'm not saying this proves these are fallen angels, but I am saying it's a little strange that people separated by oceans all seem to carve something that looked eerily familiar.

[00:05:36]>> They're not familiar.

[00:05:37]Absolutely nothing about these petroglyphs connects anything at all to Genesis 6 or to anything in the Bible. There is no entity described in the Bible that has any relationship to these petroglyphs.

[00:05:51]The relationship must go through post-biblical innovations, things that we made up and added to the traditions in order for there to be any connection whatsoever.

[00:06:05]The connection must be mediated by post-biblical traditions.

[00:06:11]So, they're not nearly familiar unless you are looking through the lenses that were fabricated long after the Bible had been completed. This is laughably misguided.

[00:06:26]>> What do you think? Coincidence? Or are we missing part of humanity's story?

[00:06:31]>> Uh, neither. You are missing a capacity for critical thought and an ability to Google competently, and you should remedy that before you start commenting on this stuff in the future cuz this is just ridiculous conspiracy theories. And the fit for this video has been Spider-Man.