It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Happened to Our Ancestors?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:22 PM
The following data is part of a theory I've developed, regarding a conspiracy in the several of the sciences against the supernatural events of history, across the entire ancient world. The problem arose primarily because it was presupposed that supernatural events in ancient texts are the equivalent of what is referred to as "myth" All religion was then redefined to be mythical, and some 5300 years of ancient history was discarded for any historical purpose. The actual roots of this problem started during the first days of German Higher Criticism.

German Higher Criticism's primary goal was to establish the biblical text as the most correct and accurate of the ancient historical books, particularly from the perspective of papal interpretation. The German Higher Critics were professors, scholars and priests of the Holy Roman Catholic order, who took it as a solemn duty to rip the ancient world apart and put it back together again in a way that would elevate the papacy's view of the biblical cannon above everything else -- bar none. This had negative ramifications for the rest of the ancient world, as you can well imagine.

Firstly, the Papacy of the final days of the Holy Roman Empire
(?), viewed the planet as being only 5000 or so years old. This, of course, colored their approach to interpretation of other ancient texts as well. The German Higher Critics knew that to advance their study, it would have to be in agreement with the papal "status quo", whom were both their science authorities and their historical authorities. Obviously, something was wrong with papal interpretation but this was not for the Critics to decide. All they had to do was prove the papal interpretation of scripture was accurate and that all other historical accounts were mere contenders for the throne. And so the real trouble began.

Armed with the volumes of knowledge available at the time, the Higher Critics arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the ancient Greeks couldn't write. This theory was initially advanced by Friedrich August Wolf in his book "Prolegomena ad Homerum" (1795). He concluded that Homer couldn't have possibly written the Iliad and the Odyssey because the ancient Greeks couldn't write, or so he thought.

One thing lead to the next, and all the ancient greek epics, poems and histories were tossed out and labelled unhistorical myth: This included the Greek histories of Egypt, Assyria, Media, and the annals of the Greek city-states. As a result, greek histories were removed from historical consideration and taken out of historical and scholarly texts at the university level. Any remaining references were called "myth". Troy never existed, or so they said.

Those whose job it was to provide the new version of history (we call these people historians, today) took the data compiled by the Higher Critics and reshaped history. And so Greece fell from glory, that is, till it was discovered some 40 years later, that the ancient Greeks could write. Unfortunately, their decision to call their ancient texts mythological, was never recanted.

As the study advanced, so fell the Ancient Hindu, the Norse, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the pagan Roman, the Babylonian, and so on, until finally, when the dust cleared, there was literally nothing left in history that was true EXCEPT the papal interpretation of the bible.

Mind you, archaeology had yet to be created as a science. Most of the ancient world was still buried under sand, newer civilizations and so on. They had virtually no clue about the ancient past but were determined to recreate it in the image most befitting the papacy's view of biblical texts. It was a mess.

Here science picks up the ball and runs down the field with it, gleefully reshaping history into whatever configuration is necessary to define their knowledge of science AT THE TIME --- that is, till they run into that proverbial wall where it's finally determined that the papacy is simply wrong.

It is at this point, the bible goes the same way the rest of the ancient world had gone - relegated to obscurity. They couldn't separate the papacy's interpretation of it from the actual words in the text. To them, the two were synonmous, and so into the trash bin of history it went, along with the rest of the ancient world. German Higher Criticism had literally, in just a couple of decades, destroyed 5300 years of ancient history, based almost entirely on their own limited understanding of the cultures it stood in judgement of, without the benefit of archaeological record, and from the standpoint that papal interpretation was the only viable possibility, else it was all false.

Now the show was on for earnest. Since the ancient past was all just a myth, the new progenitors of truth (who had replaced the papacy in that career designation) had the problem of archaeology to deal with. It became a sore spot as it tended to disprove prior pronouncements that the ancient texts were purely myth. Again and again, archaeological digs had proven the ancient texts of these long ago people, were in fact, quite historical. This was a BIG problem.

Before the ball could be snatched out of their court, something had to be done. They needed a new timeline by which to gauge the passage of their new history. Obviously, they surmised, the supernatural events mentioned in nearly every ancient text, were unscientific. Afterall, what ignorance to suppose that dragons were emperors or that people could be born in any fashion other than via the birth canal or that men/angels, could fly in the sky or travel amongst the stars! Perhaps the texts had been merely massaged for dramatic purpose, but were otherwise historical, they deliberated. It was merely a matter of determining which were the MOST reliable, if at all. They settled on Ancient Egypt, but removed from consideration any of the supernatural references.

This is where it really gets interesting. Since the other ancient texts were generally unreliable for dating the past, they assumed, out of the box, that anything that might suggest Moses was in Egypt, would need to be reinterpreted or simply ignored, because there was no other evidence of Moses having ever existed (a victim of the backdating from their original and incorrect "Ancient greeks couldn't write" theory). It got more and more specific and more twisted, as time went by.

For example, with the advent of "Black Pride", it became socially unacceptable to suggest the pharaohs of ancient egypt were anything other than blacks. Even though the pharaonic and royal statuary depicts people from many different races (including blacks) over the millenia, it is summarily ignored. This served 2 purposes:

1) It gave the black people a sense of identity in the hstory of the world, that they could be singularly proud of.
2) It ignored all references to the roots of Dynastic Egypt having come from Mesopotamia, which in essence, allowed them to ignore literally, hundreds of references in various ancient texts that had been discovered since the rise of this new view of history. Akkad, Sumer, Phoenicia, Troy, and so on, all their texts were or had been abandoned to float in the nothing that most of ancient history had already been hurled into.

Ancient Egypt was finally reinterpreted so that it did not disagree with their prior findings, most of which had been based on lack of data to the contrary and any new discoveries that suggest they might have beenwrong, have since been totally ignored.

This is, I believe, the second biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind.

(continued in next post)

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:58 PM
This is a really good post. Cannot imagine how much time and thought went into it. Great job.
I am not sure though that there was a conspiracy, it is very hard to compile an understandable and fluent historical time-line while keeping it as precise as possible. There was no real data ,a lot of sources were contradictory and some where simply ignored. It is not an exact science (maybe carbon-dating part should be exact, but even it demands calibration curves) so personal rivalries, arrogance and simple greed caused a lot of damage to it.
I am almost sure that we got picture wrong, but there is no way to find the truth. Even Greek historians that are known to us already faced a lot of puzzles and problems and contradictory information at their time.
I do not think that there is somewhere a secret vault that holds the truth, however there might be tiny bits of truth in dusty archives and collections that no one is aware of their value.
Oops, missed the "to be continued". Deeply sorry.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ZeroKnowledge]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:08 PM
oops. extra post

[edit on 7-6-2008 by undo]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:20 PM
For example, Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray (re)discovered the Osirieon at Abydos, Egypt in the early 1900's. During the course of their studies, Ms. Murray noted that it was the way the stone was tooled, the type of stone, the layout and configuration of the building, that determined the age and authorship of ANYTHING in ancient Egypt, but for some reason, this was totally overlooked in favour of the theory that Seti I had built it, rather than having incorporated it into his own structure. A cursory study of this can be read in one of my other threads:

The problem of assuming it was more ancient than Seti I's structure, relates directly to the fact that the temple at Giza (which was nearly identical in style and composition) was from the same age period as the Osirieon! And if that were not enough, there was the looming issue of the graves at Naqada and Abydos, which were not only constructed in mesopotamian style but had many gravegoods of mesopotamian origin. THIS IS ALL CATEGORICALLY IGNORED.

Why, you might ask? Frankly, I believe it's because to change it now would require doing to their history, what their progenitors did to the ancient world.

The next problem lies squarely in the area of cultural language variants. When Egypt was used to set the timeline, only the greek spelling of those words were used. Had they used the egyptian words, most of the historical errors we encounter today regarding Egypt and civilizations involved with Egypt, would be resolved. An example is the assumption that the sun God is the equivalent of the son God. In the egyptian language, sun is spelled "itn" and son is spelled "sa". even the glyphs for them are different!


posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:21 PM
(had to go to the grocery lol)

Anyway, it was assumed and enforced at university level, that the ancient cultures had little or nothing to do with each other, particularly where the god references occured. The sumerian Enki, was simply an abberation of Sumer. The god Osiris, was simply an abberation of Egypt. Krishna was only from India. Apollo was only from Greece and so on. I believe this is a bold-faced lie, and that these are references to the same group of beings. The divine council of all the ancient cultures are the same divine council, just from a different cultural perspective and different language base. Here's a few examples:

The Egyptian Ra was also the Greek Apollo, the Akkadian Ea, the Sumerian Enki, the Norse Loki and therefore the biblical Serpent in the Garden and Apollyon/Abaddon the Destroyer of Revelation 9.

The Roman Jupiter was the Grecian Zeus, Sumerian Enlil, the Ugaritic El, the biblical Jehovah, and the Islamic Allah.

The Egyptian Narmer (the scorpion king) was also the Egyptian Osiris (after death), the Akkadian Enmerkar and the Biblical Nimrod (there's also quite a bit of evidence pointing to Gilgamesh being the same guy!).

The Egyptian Isis was also the Sumerian Inana, the Akkadian Ishtar and the Biblical Ashtoreth.

The Biblical Tower of Babel was the Babylonian Etemenanki and therefore the Sumerian E.Abzu.

The Sumerian Eridu was also Babel - gate of the Gods.

The Egyptian "Nun' was also the Sumerian Abzu.

Moses even makes reference to the divine council in the Old Testament. He describes it as the group of divine beings, referred to as the gods, who took over adminstration of earthly affairs following the incident at the Tower of Babel. Each was assigned a country to oversee, to adminstrate, from on high.

This goes on and on and on. And almost all of it is ignored or summarily swept under the table. Do the research yourself. You will find out I'm telling you the truth, as I know it, anyway.

So what happened to our ancient ancestors? If these old references are accurate, ALOT more happened than you are told today. Today we are told to ignore all that history and pretend like it never happened. I say to that, not just NO, but HECK NO!

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:38 PM
Interesting, your research links in with a... discrepancy i once discovered when researching about ancient moon gods.

Basically, the name of this particular God was "sin" - something which would undoubtedly have faced the wrath of your 'moral threat hunters', as after all it would be a contradiction if it turned out one day that the christian faith had infact named one of it's precepts after a religious opponent.

Your research has brought to light something i have suspected for a long time, undo, and your findings only serve to confirm those suspicions.

Truly, human history seems shrouded in mystery in many instances...

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:52 PM
Surely though if these ancient gods were the same and had interacted with different cultures would they not have been the ones to originate their names.

For instance if Enki had said call me by the name Enki than the sound "en-ki" would be the same regardless of the language written or spoken.

Of course if there was no communication between the gods and the people then perhaps it would be more plausible unless they prefered to be known by different names that is.

Do you have any pictorial representations of these gods from different cultures ?

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by sherpa

The languages changed, so the word changed.
Here's an interesting tidbit:

Abydos is a greek word for an egyptian city. It was given that designation later. Originally, it was spelled "Abdju", the egyptian word for it. The "dj" is pronounced "z" so the word Abydos/Abdju, is pronounced "Abzu" in egyptian. Abzu was the name of Sumerian Enki's "gate to the underworld or otherworld," and has been called all manner of things including:


So what's the Sumerian Abzu doing in Abydos Egypt?
It's not the city but what's in the city, more specifically, the structure known as the Osirieon (Osiris was also a greek word, btw. his egyptian burial name was Asar, Ausar or Wesir, a title he was given in mesopotamia after his death in Egypt), which is said by egyptologists to be a model of the egyptian Nun and the sacred mountain of creation (an egyptian reference to the sumerian e.abzu, the city of eridu, as it rises from the abzu (the abyss). And if you followed all that, congrats! lol it's alot of data compacted into a few short sentences.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by undo]

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:46 PM

The languages changed, so the word changed.

I will confess that I do not really feel qualified to pursue this as the only tool in my toolbox is my logic application to langauge evolution.

A random example here, the word plumber and plumb bob originated from the latin word for lead, ie "plumbum" so what kind of timeframe are we looking at in this example, according to wiki anything from 75BC back so over 2000 years and yet we still get the same sound or something recognizable as the same sound but two different languages.

You see I need to have the evolution of the language change explained to me I would imagine it did not change overnight.

Like I mentioned a better angle maybe pictorial representations and there similarities.

By the way I am just about keeping up and I read at least part of your stargate thread but some time ago

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:26 PM
Well the sound of "b" was the same in egyptian and in mesopotamian. "Babel" was a reference back to "the Abzu Gate of god". the word is several root words combined, such as "Bab" being a later word for Abzu (the gate to the underworld or otherworld) and "Ab" a root of Bab/Abzu, which means "Water" and followed by "El" which means "God." The entire word is translated, "Gate of the gods." I don't know where the plural translation comes from. But this is what the Tower of Babel (the Etemenanki) was - the "Gateway of the gods" or the "Gate of the gods," which Nimrod attempted to reopen (the stairway to heaven) at Babel, which was originally the site of Eridu and Enki's E.ABZU, the Egyptian Nun. In fact, later in Akkad, early babylon, the E.ABZU/Etemenanki was called the E.NUN.

To be even more specific, the text claims Nimrod was modified after he was born, to be a Mighty One (which is biblical lingo for "Nephilim" hybrid), which I'm theorizing means that he was modified to be the hands,arms, legs and eyes of Enki, the previous owner of the gate at the same site. Remember it says Nimrod's mother was an egyptian, and he travels back there with his entourage. In fact, Nimrod's mother was also Isis.

The actual story goes thusly:

NIMROD'S mother was Semiramis the daughter OF Cush, SO in reality she was NIMROD'S older sister.
By incest with Cush she became NIMROD'S mother. When he reached manhood SHE married her own son NIMROD, and ruled as QUEEN. A few Years later she conspired with others and he was killed. She said he was 2/3 god and 1/3 mortal, and the man had to die AS a sacrifice for his people. She built a monument to him and said he would return soon. (That's also gilgamesh!)

Semiramis is also Isis, Inana, Ishtar and Ashtoreth.

IT's no wonder that the tower of babel incident caused so much confusion. Just a slight change in language, throws off historical research and you have to really want to know the answer to find it.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:38 PM
Need to add that when Nimrod went to Egypt, he and his compadres settled at what would become known as Abydos (Abdju) and founded the city there that would be the birth place of Dynastic Egypt. This is why the gravegoods and burials were mesopotamian. This is also why the city is named after the "Abzu", the Gate of the gods. The hints are all over the place. So the Osirieon at Abydos was not built in Seti I's time. IT may not have even been built in Nimrod's time (could be even more ancient than that, but it definitely is older than Seti I's timeframe).

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:58 PM
If you followed all that you know that I've just said that RA (enki) modified Nimrod (Osiris/Narmer/Enmerkar) to rebuild his gate at Eridu, which was then known as Babel. When that didn't work out, Nimrod and his entourage went to Egypt and built the Osirieon (my theory) for the same purpose. Even the egyptologists in the mainstream believe the Osirieon is a model of the primeval waters of chaos (the nun) and the sacred mountain that arises from the nun, which is identical to Samuel Noah Kramer's translation regarding Enki's (Ra's) arrival on this planet - "Then Enki raises his city from the abyss (the abzu gate) and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:55 PM
How I found out Ra was Enki:

I was reading an ancient egyptian text entitled "The Legend of Re(Ra) and Hathor" (also called "The Legend of the Destruction of Mankind.") Egyptologists are a bit puzzled about what it means but generally agree that it is a flood story at its most basic. As I was reading along I noticed that Ra was described as having skin like gold, bones like silver and hair like lapis lazuli. It dawned on me that I had read something similar to that elsewhere, but about somethign entirely different. Turns out that's the same description as Enki's E.ABZU, his flying floating roaring glowing advice-giving tangled thread beyond understanding, city. It was gold on the outside (Ra had gold skin). It was silver on the inside (Ra had silver bones) and it was decorated with lapis lazuli (Ra had hair like lapis lazuli).

Theoretically, this seemed to be saying that Ra was Enki's city, personified. Or rather, Ra was a deified structure. Events happened at this structure that coincided with events described in both egyptian history and sumerian-akkadian history. The E.ABZU at Eridu (Enki's city) was, afterall, the equivalent of the sacred mountain that rose from the egyptian Nun! Did that mean Ra didn't actually exist or that Ra was Enki AND his city, and they had become one for the purpose of relating the events? I theorized the latter was probably true: Ra was Enki and Enki was Ra. Same-same. The name variant probably spawned off of Enki's akkadian name of EA, the god of the abyss.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by undo]

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:17 AM

The Lost Testament: From Eden to Exile The Five-Thousand-Year History Of The People Of The Bible by David Rohl

The Osirieon

The Legend of the Destruction of Mankind

The Legend of the Destruction of Mankind
(Hieroglyphic version)

Etemenanki (The Tower of Babel)

The Giza Discovery: Enmerkar and the Shrine of the Abzu

Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata

Enki and the World Order

Enki's Journey to Nibru

Revelation 9

Friedrich August Wolf

Higher Criticism

The Compendium of World History

[edit on 8-6-2008 by undo]

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:07 AM
Great thread undo!

The great pyramid is one of my favorite examples. It's construction can not be duplicated even with todays technology. Yet we are told these were primative ignoramuses and we are so much further advanced.

This about a 10 min segment on the construction and purpose of the great pyramid.

[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:28 AM
What happened to our Ancestors ? Simple. They all died !!!
Joking apart though i do agree that there is alot more to history than is being let on. For example i've always wondered if there was a civilisation before the last Ice Age? When you hear of stories of miners finding ancient artifacts deep in mines it does make you think...i've no doubt that we are but one of mnay civilsations that have existed on Earth. And when we nuke ourselves into oblivion or due to some natural disaster then another civilisation will eventually take our place. People come and people go.

[edit on 8/6/08 by Wirral Bagpuss]

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss

i think there is, but I'm basing this on texts written by a christian scholar named DAKE, in a book entitled GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN. in it he points out scriptural clues to a prior inhabitation of this planet, by a totally different sentient lifeform than homo sapians. it's very interesting.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by undo

Can you point out a few of those scriptural clues maybe undo? I would like to check that out myself. I looked up the Dake book - wow that's a 3 year study plan...

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:38 PM
one of them is the gap theory. you're familar with that, yes? that there's a gap between genesis 1:1 and 1:2. elsewhere it says the earth was not created tohu (spelling?) which means it wasn't created void or in chaos, yet verse 2 shows up us a planet that has become chaotic. it's also possible where it refers to the face of the water, that it was essentially massively flooded and covered in a layer of ice. so the first verse is just a general stating of fact. and the second is referencing what happened next as it relates to the human dispensation, which doesn't suggest how much time has passed between those two verses. he believes the prior inhabitants were a race of angels, who went threw their own dispensation, their own time of testing, their own technological development, etc. (we are currently in the dispensation of man, he says) I believe he's onto something with that, as I can't find a single statue or cave art that depicts homo sapiens prior to 3900 BC. it's all bipedal reptilians and what appears to be greys (as in the grey aliens).

EDIT: also of note is the indication that the land already exists and is merely "appearing" into view as the water level lowers/gathers into "one place".

Here's a review of the book by some guy on

This book will only appeal to two types of people: Those who like a very literal approach to interpretation and those who like non-conventional theory regarding Creation and the subject of angels, demons, giants and other less discussed topics in Genesis and world history. Dake amazingly merges all this in his huge volume of small print theological meat. From eternity past to eternity future and all in between is included. It is a library of information. It may be the only theological treatise you need alongside your favorite Bible. It is his magnum opus and rightly so. But if you are looking for lightweight, non-literal, allegorical, thin and politically correct approach, steer away from this, as it will infuriate you!

[edit on 8-6-2008 by undo]

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

This about a 10 min segment on the construction and purpose of the great pyramid.

Interesting video series. Is it JW?

[edit on 8-6-2008 by undo]

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in