Hitler, Ayrans, Summerians. How it all ties in., page 10

reply to post by sciemus

Next you link to an image and “let us draw our own conclusions”. There are also problems here. Serious ones. First, the picture isn't from Sumer. It's from Egypt. And the hieroglyphs do look like, as many others have claimed, a helicopter, a submarine, and a flying saucer. But the problem is that the Egyptians sometimes wrote one set of hieroglyphs on top of another. That's what happened here. The name of one pharaoh, Ramesses II, was written on top of another, Seti I, and these shapes were formed. There is a very good debunking, with a nice diagram, here.

You then move on comparing Sumerian texts and the Hebrew Bible, not something that's new. As soon as a translation of the Enuma Elish was first published, people noticed the obvious parallels. It's fairly common consensus nowadays that the Hebrew Bible drew on an earlier, shared Mesopotamian sources, such as the Enuma Elish. And the fact that Elohim is plural is also well known. A problem with saying definitively that the Hebrews were at one point before their recorded history polytheistic is that Eloh, the singular form, simply doesn't occur in the text. Further, it's clear from the Bible itself that Elohim refers to any deities, while YHWH is specifically the Hebrew patron god.

And since we're talking about the Hebrew Genesis, it's important to remember, that more than likely, unless you subscribe to the Bible as the absolute literal truth, the story of Genesis is probably a morality tale of sorts.

You mention that the gods were not allowed to take their creations with them, and provide a picture of a “ship”. However, this prohibition isn't in the text you're talking about: the Eridu Genesis, which can be found here. And second, the “ship” probably isn't a ship at all. It's a common “winged sun” hieroglyph, what is the modern day symbol of Zoroastrianism, and represents divinity or royalty (getting back to our blurry line in Sumerian culture between the two). Finally, you seem to be mixing the Mesopotamian sources very freely, despite claiming to be talking about the Sumerians. Some stuff has been from Sumerians, some from the Akkadians, and some from the Babylonians.

You also talk about Ziudsura's apperance, but in all the texts we have from the ancient Middle East, no description was given, and Ziudsura was definitely male. I wouldn't trust the Lost Book of Enki's description of Ziudsura, unless they reference an original text you can find elsewhere.

I am glad to see that you are skeptical of the Flood Myth as science.

You then begin your conclusions. You ask why Hitler preferred the Aryan race. This was due, as Hitler himself admits in Mein Kampf, to the science of the time. Scientific racism was endemic, and eugenics was the science of the day. You then ask why Kings and Queens intermarried. This was for two reasons. First: class divisions, only Royalty married Royalty. Second: political games; marriages often accompanied alliances. You then ask about the Divine Right of Kings. That's actually new, written by the Frenchman Jean Bodin during the Reformation, and was generally only used by English monarchs. Finally, you ask about US Presidents being related to one another. This isn't a hard answer either: class divisions again. Rarely is it some poor guy from backwater nowhere that becomes the President. Lincoln, for example, was one of those, and he's not on that list. It's not that odd.

As for my conclusions, they're short and sweet. It was an interesting read, but I just don't buy it.