It is pretty evident that:
Should read:
This fits with Don's question/statement that "no incarnation occurred" and Ra answering "this is correct" given that incarnation is a space/time phenomenon.
As for:
The obvious issue here is the term "incarnate" (which translates from Latin to English as "enfleshed") and would make little sense in the context of time/space (unless, of course, you take extreme semantic liberties), not to mentioned it contradicts other quotes in the material (as shown in the first/main post). Ra is known for making little mistakes like that, unfortunately. The sentence would perhaps better read something like:
The problem, as usual, is semantics (words/terms "open to interpretation").
Quote:in the sense of incarnation in third-density time/space
Should read:
Quote:in the sense of incarnation in third-density space/time
This fits with Don's question/statement that "no incarnation occurred" and Ra answering "this is correct" given that incarnation is a space/time phenomenon.
As for:
Quote:These particular entities were incarnate in time/space third density, that is, the so-called inner planes,
The obvious issue here is the term "incarnate" (which translates from Latin to English as "enfleshed") and would make little sense in the context of time/space (unless, of course, you take extreme semantic liberties), not to mentioned it contradicts other quotes in the material (as shown in the first/main post). Ra is known for making little mistakes like that, unfortunately. The sentence would perhaps better read something like:
Quote:These particular entities were *stationed* in time/space third density, that is, the so-called inner planes,
The problem, as usual, is semantics (words/terms "open to interpretation").