posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:24 PM
Here's one of my posts from the list where I ask a few questions and make a few comments about how the concepts are all jumbled up in his writings:
It concerns me that he is melding the Annunaki of Sumer with the Annunaki and Igigi of Babylon. What Babylonian texts refer to as the explanation of
the beginnings of humanity, may be different than what the Sumerian texts say, and as you can see from reading his work, just a slight variation in
those older languages could make a big difference in interpretation. It isn't that I don't believe he translated the Babylonian texts properly, but
rather that he is using texts from a different time period to explain some pretty odd things that occured in the distant past of Sumer, and some of it
might very well be incorrect or different because of the large expanse of time and the powers influencing the scribes of the day. By the time of
Babylon, in biblical texts, there was already a huge separation of the powers of the "gods," if we are to follow the biblical verses and sumerian
cylinder seals that make reference to the fallen angels/nephilim/an/ and the annunaki. They (the fallen angels) according to the biblical texts, were
already heavily influencing mankind's affairs by the time of Babylon - this would include their influence on religion and the writing of the
Babylonian historical texts. However, I have no doubt that they were indeed ETs that the bible refers to as Angelic Beings of a Fallen (descended)
Where the difference comes is the interpretation of how they were "Created" and by whom. Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian texts is very
logical, yet it appears to mix together 2 different schools of thought and that's where the rub comes in. For example, according to the biblical and
pseudopigraphical texts (book of enoch), the nephilim didn't arrive till the generation of Jared.
And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had
sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.
At this point both the bible and the book of enoch, reinforce that the nephilim are not "gods," but rather angels (sons of God), whose act of mating
with the human species actually caused massive upheaval. According to Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian texts, humans were already
demi-"gods" if they were literally created from the genetic tissue of nephilim and homo sapiens. If the nephilim mated with them again after they
were already demi-"gods," where was the problem? Yet both the bible and the book of enoch stress that such a mating was a very bad thing. Why
would it be bad if they were already genetically compatible and, if we are to follow Sitchin's translations, already giving birth to demi-god
children (they were afterall, half "god" themselves)? What was the difference between genetically altering a homo sapiens and having sex
(genetically altering the offspring) of a homo sapiens, if the homo sapiens were already having sex themselves at that point and already creating
genetically altered offspring?
Sitchin's interpretation of the Babylonian creation story says that when the nephilim (an) first found homo sapiens, he had long hair and was wild,
"uncivilized" and carefree in nature. So they changed it. This sounds more like the biblical interpretation of the Garden, and how humans were
originally free of worry and had no concern about their state of dress or undress, enjoyed the fruits of the land, hung out with the critters, were
basically nomads and caretakers of the land, and didn't need the trappings of civilization to be blissfully happy. At this point, according to
biblical tradition, homo sapiens had already been created by God. It was a nephilim named the "Serpent" who modified that state of being by
introducing them to the concept of right and wrong. Right and wrong according to whom? According to the nephilim? According to Sitchin, the Serpent
was symbollic of Adam's *ahem* manhood. These things don't jive. If procreation was the Serpent's legacy, then why are there 2 steps in the
nephilim's intro to homo sapiens: Step 1: Gene Splice with them. Step 2: Procreate with them. (same thing). Either way, homo sapiens aren't
created by the nephilim, as they already existed.
This is all very confusing.