Talk:Ezekiel's wheel
Alien craft model[edit]
Blumrich claims to have reconstructed the "alien craft" described in the Book of Ezekiel and has created at least one model. I remember seeing a picture in one of Däniken's books. It didn't look like a wheel, more like a (spinning) top with four "legs" with propellers. The omni-directional wheels were supposed to be underneath, like landing gear, I think. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- *facepalm* - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Mistranslation[edit]
It's claimed that round is a mistranslation of calf's feet but I can see no explanation of why this should be. However in German cow is das Rind and rundvlees
is Dutch for beef (vlees- meat or flesh). Could it be that rund became round? 
Генгисevolving
20:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
#drink[edit]
[moved from page - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)]
New contributor:
Objections to this page as it stands: Firstly let us please be scientific about the term "incontrovertible proof". The opinions of someone about a book is not the same as incontrovertible proof. Ezekiel did not have the benefits of modern recording technology (cameras and camcorders). We have these today and yet even this "evidence" is not considered incontrovertible proof as we have the confessions of people who have knowingly created fraudulent images of UFOs. Similarly we have incontrovertible proof that humans engage in "fiction" all the time. Storytelling is as old as homo sapiens, and can be used for many reasons - to educate, to mythologize or even just to entertain with tales of fantastic events and heroes. How can we be so sure that Ezekiel (or the author of the book) was not a latter day Dan Brown? Or even that the author was suffering from some kind of delusion or hallucination? There is no evidence to suggest or demand that this must be a factual work. Furthermore, a classic statement of scientific thought goes as follows: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." (Marcello Truzzi) The claim that Ezekiels book is proof in itself of an alien visitation is certainly an extraordinary claim - yet the only "proof" offered is the opinion of a contributor.
I have tried to update this page to make it a bit less colloquial and a bit more factual, removing what are clearly nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as fact. Unfortunately all of this has been removed and replaced with exactly the same unfounded opinions - hence this new section intended to promote rationality. — Unsigned, by: NelsoniMaximus / talk / contribs
Hello halo[edit]
Would not [1] - possibly the Complex halo display - not explain what Ezekiel saw? (Combined with 'looking for a mystical interpretation for an unusual phenomenon.') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Mandatory Star Trek quote[edit]
I know Star Trek V was quite awful, but what does a so-called almighty God need with a starship chariot?. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Biblical coherency[edit]
For whatever reason, I'm sorely tempted to include a remark pointing out that contrary to certain opinions, the Bible does, in fact, have enough consistency and coherency to function as an entertaining and enlightening narrative, perhaps even with some valid moral lessons (albeit less valid than they were when it was freshly written); what it doesn't have is enough consistency with real history, biology, physics, etc. to be regarded as nonfiction. But after the recent Ark Encounter controversy, I'm a little unsure of that being a good idea. Pointing out that the angels in the Bible would need to say "Be not afraid" when appearing before mortals because they very much looked like something plucked straight out of a surreal nightmare is one thing; rambling about Biblical consistency might be another. Penny for your thoughts? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)