It’s been a while since I started the John Lamb Lash “Gnostic Archons = Aliens” thread. With so much PaleoBabble out there, you can get sidetracked.

At any rate, in my first post on this topic, I quoted John Lamb Lash’s online article on this subject. Specifically, Lash makes this claim:

“Physical descriptions of Archons occur in several Gnostic codices. Two types are clearly identified: a neonate or embryonic type, and a draconic or reptilian type. Obviously, these descriptions fit the Greys and Reptilians of contemporary reports to a T. Or I should say, to an ET” (emphasis mine).

Really? Can we test this claim? Sure – and it’s easy. Lash gives no suggestion that he knows Coptic, and so I will presume he is basing his arguments on the English translations of the Nag Hammadi texts (unless he suggests otherwise and wants to get into Coptic issues). Rather than take my word (or Lash’s) for what the Nag Hammadi texts say in this regard, I’ve made two videos of me searching the entire Nag Hammadi text corpus for Lash’s evidence. You’ll see Lash has misrepresented what’s actually there. In this first video, I search for his terminology in the above quotation. In the second one – which will be the next post – I search for all occurrences of the word “archon” (and its plural as well). Turn your speakers up! It’s a bit over 16 minutes.

One note of warning: you’ll hear some clattering in the background of the video. It’s my dryer. Yes, my “office” so to speak is in the laundry room. Hey, I don’t have a real office or studio, but I don’t let that stop me. Maybe if I wrote some “expose” on how aliens came to earth long ago and made us I’d get rich duping people . . . nah. I think I’ll pass.