The example that has raised my concerns is how ancient references to monsterous creatures are being all swept into the same bag of having a celestial identity.
The area that has recently come to my attention is rock carvings of dinosaurs and other references of characters in ancient text. These two overlap to some degree. The first involves discussions here and elsewhere about the validity of the abundant rock carvings of a particular creature which has a fossil counterpart, stegosaur also described under the name 'Mishipishu' from where we get Mississippi and sharing the same region. This is a highly substantiated piece of evidence for dinosaurs being alive with humans but it is rejected strongly with little more than opinion as a reason. The same opponent, who puts great value in ancient texts disregards an ancient text that speaks clearly of creatures of incredible size that were contemporary to man. The text is not referring specifically to Mishipishu it is mentioned here as one of many examples of age in question but there could be some parallels drawn. Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones brings in another challange to age if allowed.

Take one look the description of a creature described in Job 40:15 > 41:10 in reference to "the behemoth" and then look at several dinosaurs and don't forget to look at "sarcosuchus" (Super Croc) http://www.supercroc.org/anatomy.htm . With these examples both from rock art and ancient text we have enough to open a case for a double standard and when asked directly if the opponent had considered these carefully, without elaboration, the case was dismissed.

Using this same character i'll now make mention of an author who has applied a celestial identity to this creature. In the book Thunderbolts of the Gods, Dave Talbott has put his view to print.

I'm not the best reader but even so there is not likely to be much chance of misreading the ancient text enough to justify transferring the creature described in Job to a celestial manifestation of a plasma interaction. Sure i'll grant that one might take eating grass to mean an arc discharge tearing up the green fields, but why create an abstraction when evidence exists from numerous directions that matches the ancient description.

There are several other areas where this particular ancient text is dismantled and characters given celestial identities. Here is where i'll end for now and as I get the time more information will be added but this stuff is too obvious to be missed. The interpretive license, taken to this extreme sets such a low standard that soft-science will be taking on new meaning.

I said in the past and here again as well let the texts speak for themselves and leave it at that, unless of course you've lived long enough to qualify as a witness. Too often scholars are quoted and there are some problems that creep into those sources so let's give the writen word the same respect as is given to symbols on rock. Let the preserved words speak what they will. dz