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.


Was Isaac an Egyptian?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:36 PM
check out this quote from "Enki and the World Order" (see link in my previous post)

great dragon who stands in Eridug,

isn't that interesting? the text is extremely old. the dragon reference is about enki. "dragon" was a word all those years ago:

Akk. ušumgallu "great dragon, snake".

See ETCSL: ušumgal=type of serpent.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:45 PM
Interesting...I have conversed with someone on another forum and his whole idea of thinking is that the God in the Old Testament was a fire breathing dragon on a killing spree more or less. I dont know if its all of that, but to compare Eniki with Yhwh and then to image a dragon consuming sacrafices....hmmmm, tis curious.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

no, i showed you the artifact from his city. he's a serpent being. why did you ignore that?
it's dated circa 4000 bc. it has scales. it has fangs. it has elongated snake eyes. it looks to be holding the "ME". i think it's enki, but even if it's not, there's not a single statue prior to 3000 BC that depicts a human being. they all look like snake people.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:58 PM
I dont know what it is you think Im ignoring> I find the statue very interesting.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:07 PM
If Eniki is a serpent being, wouldnt Enlil be also. I really dont know that much about their story. Were they siblings of some sort?

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

there's more. i think you will find this also interesting

reposting the original from eridu

The image comes from the Baghad Museum in Iraq. Sadly, the statue is one of the artifacts that went missing during the first days of the War in Iraq. Here are the particulars:

• provenience: Eridu

• dimension(s) (in cm):
height: 14

• material: clay (baked)

• date: ca. 4000 BC

• description:
terracotta, nude male, with 'lizard-shaped' face and pointed head (hair piece?), holding stick in his left hand; shoulders decorated with applied clay pellets

It's the only statue that was found in Eridu, which by the way, was Enki's city. Notice it says circa 4000 BC. Here are close-ups and the side view of the statue:


Close-up of Head

Too many fingers



In this image of a Mother Goddess, you are lead to believe she is a human. In fact, someone decided to make a fake head for her, as she was not originally a human. Here's the evidence

The original was a mottled green, with large clawed feet. sitting on a throne which has lizard heads on each side. It was falsified in the first picture, and several items were removed, covered up or added, including the original color, the clawed feet, and the fact the throne was surmounted by lizard heads. Her originally head probably looked more like this:

In fact, all the statues older than 3900 BC, even the Mother Goddess statues, were reptilian.

This is not our planet.

In the early days of egypt, however, you can see humans frolicking with greys and reptilians in this image

i've colored in the image to show which ones i think are greys and which human and which reptilian (theoretical)

green: reptilians
pink: greys
blue: humans

In the book of Genesis, it is said that the serpent loses his legs as a punishment. I believe this indicates he was removed from the body or host body he was in or perhaps signifies the first time he and his compadres are changed physically so that they must inhabit a host body to be able to perform actions they were accustomed to performing normally.

In either case, he shows up again almost immediately, so something happened during that time frame that allowed him to get back to the busniess of running the Earth. It could be that the image I posted above from Eridu, was the new host body and that we have no surviving pictures of his original appearance.

If Eniki is a serpent being, wouldnt Enlil be also. I really dont know that much about their story. Were they siblings of some sort?

I don't know. I've yet to find any reference to Enlil being a seraphim type of being. I was thinking they were just one of the races created by God. that part is very ...fuzzy.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Also, we see Cains offerings of plants to God was not good enough, even though Cains intentions seem to be honest, for Cain was a farmer. Abels offering were accepted because it was a offering of flesh/blood. We clearly see with the Old Testament that blood was very important to this 'god'. In fact, it was needed. One could totally get lost in the justification of blood sacrafice. It is repeated over and over. Jesus even tells them, they were wrong in doing these things.

In fact, Cain's sacrifice was one of blood, for it is he who killed his brother. So Abel killed lambs but respected life, whereas Cain grew crops, but did not respect life. A dichotomy, the likes of which are through the whole bible.

I care not for people like Sitchin who gaze beyond Akhenaten, the original Elvis, the original pimp daddy, man of the people.

Akhenaten was the original Hamlet, cause he went among his people, and yeah, he was the man in charge of evrything, who tried to smash the power of the church at that time. He sent his lovely daughters all over the Earth and folded a mystery into history which was only really revealed in the last century. Now the threads come together.

Originally posted by solomons path
So you're claiming Solomon not only pre-dates Moses, but was his father?

- There never was a Temple in Jeruselum then . . .
- David was NOT a monotheistic ruler but, by blood, Thutmose IV . . . which means David was a polytheistic ruler . . . So, he didn't fight with the Caananites . . . but, refurbished the Sphinx and was responsible for the "Dream Stele"?

Yes, I am describing that situation, as it seems more likely than believing in false histories made up by priests of the "second" temple. I think they had to continue the damnation (removal from history) of Akhenaten, history's greatest rebel.

Moses wrote the torah, and in fact, he was the second born son, his older brother had been assasinated. Akhenaten had to be hidden away (among his ancestors in the north, protected by his mother Tiye, until emerging as a young man to assume the throne. He hid her in the Torah as the biblical Miriam, who hides Moses and arranges his education and youth.

Where is this Solomon you speak of? Where is one shred of history for this "Greatest King" ...No, it is surely Amenhotep III, the "Gleaming Sun Disc", Akhenaten's father, husband to Tiye, Daughter of Yuya, who is the historical Solomon. His power was unrivalled at that time and all manner of other kingdoms curried his favor. Before the Amrna Heresy and the beginning of the end of Egypt, it was Amenhotep III who was the agent of monotheism, and the stage was set for Akhenaten's revolt against the priests.

Akhenaten opened himself up to the people, as did Jesus. Jesus loved women, as did Akhenaten. Jesus could not have hoped to be even one ounce cooler, than Akhenaten was, and he knew full well what was owed to Moses, and surely he preached this his whole life, therefore fulfilling Moses' plans.

Can you not see the bloodthirst in today's Christ worship? People have placed themselves in the position of being the vulture who pecks at Prometheus' liver. Let him off the rock and let him dance and be a real person, I say.

It is not enough, that today's Christian DEMANDS that it is Almighty God himself who came to Earth? No, for todays Christian also DEMANDS that God then become a sacrifice. Today's Christian is all about human sacrifice and cannot comprehend the idea of a world where blood sacrifices are not needed. The cross itself is an item which is made to be dripping blood. Don't people see what world they've made?

Here's an ostrich feather fan from Tut's tomb, and as with several items in Tut's tomb, it belonged to his family. It has been dated to the reign of his Grandfather, Amenhotep III aka Solomon.

Anthropomorphic Ankh

I prefer the ankh, to the cross. The ankh seems to be more about life whereas the cross is about death and blood.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by smallpeeps]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:17 PM
Very interesting statues. Ive ponered on these strange things before. Defenatly some strange serpent looking creatures. Im not sure if I would say they had good intentions or bad ones. Im not a big fan of the whole Niburu thing. Not saying there isnt some ancient truth to these myths...its all just so out of this world.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

who said anything about nibiru? these are real artifacts found in ancient sumer by real archaeologists. gads, i hate when people bring up nibiru to try to disprove what i'm saying. i don't even believe in nibiru. but enlil's city in sumer, named NIBRU (called NIPPUR these days... nibru became nibbur became nippur, they did that letter flipping thing alot back then, with b's and p's) is real.

The city of Nippur (Sumerian Nibru, Akkadian Nibbur)

this place is referred to in the sumerian text


these are not sitchin texts. they are sumerian texts as translated by
Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by smallpeeps

a thread i made called

you might find it interesting, especially as it goes along and other data is added as a result of a debate i had in that thread with a guy who called himself marduk.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:44 PM
Well I see how people confuss the two-nibiru and Nibru. I see your points and they are well taken.

My idea, to even dare speculate about these serpent beings would be the half man half immortals or the fallen ones that so many religions talk about.

Getting in to talks of hybrids and genetic mutation are a bit far for me. Not saying that there is not importance or truth in the stories, I do find it all very interesting.

Interesting yes.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

notice where it says this one is from?

abydos. isn't that interesting? i think that's very interesting.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:41 PM
The problem I have with Isaac being pharaoh's son is in Genesis 12:19. It was quoted (incorrectly) earlier with one important word left out: might. The verse reads: Why saidst thou, she is my sister? so I MIGHT have taken her to me to wife...." In fact, "the Lord plagued pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Abram didn't technically lie to pharaoh about Sarai being his sister. She was his half sister. Same father, different mother. It's explained in chapter 20 when Abraham pulled the same stunt with King Abimelech. Abimelech didn't have relations with her either. Apparently Isaac learned well from his father since he also played that "she's my relative" card. Rebekah was his first cousin but poor Abimelech got played again. He eventually kicked Isaac out of town.

As far as Hagar somehow being related...yes, she was an Egyptian but the Bible doesn't say that Pharaoh gave her to Abraham and since Pharaoh and his house were plagued and he never had sex with Sarai, no pharonic bloodline can be traced from Abraham.

Pharaoh gave gifts to Abram: sheep and oxen and he asses and menservants and MAIDSERVANTS and she asses and camels. (Gen. 12:16) If Hagar was a child of pharaoh, he most certainly would not have given her out to some traveling stranger as a maidservant.

It was at least 10 years after Sarai and Abram had been living in Canaan that Sarai offered Hagar to Abram. Before that they lived who knows how long on the plains of Mamre, before that Canaan, before that Bethel. How old would Hagar had to have been if and when she, as the daughter of a pharaoh was given to Abram (or Sarai)?

Eliezer was from Damascus; also not related by blood. Abraham was pretty picky about keeping the bloodline, not willing to let his son Isaac marry any of the locals but to only marry with one from "my country and my kindred". Even after Sarah died and Abraham got remarried to a woman named Keturah who bore him 6 sons, he still left the entire inheritance to Isaac. He gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and SENT THEM AWAY.

They continued to keep it all in the family because Jacob, Isaac's son, married his first cousin, Rachel. The blessing and inheritance fell to Jacob. His brother, Esau married a Hittite "which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebekah".

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by whitewave

If Sarah was to get pregnant with the Pharoahs offspring, I dont think the news would be on public display. I find it too curious that the traditions of Egypt and a famous bloodline all switch nations around the same time. The Ark, circumcisions and 'kings' Many old languages are based on root words. I find it odd that in Hebrew, ra means evil. But yet ra is the center root of Is ra el.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

ov is the center root of leovirgo

i think you need a stronger example than that, for this particular case.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:50 PM
the name sarah, dervies from sarai, which means princess.
the root of it is sar, which means

1) prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain

a) chieftain, leader

b) vassal, noble, official (under king)

c) captain, general, commander (military)

d) chief, head, overseer (of other official classes)

e) heads, princes (of religious office)

f) elders (of representative leaders of people)

g) merchant-princes (of rank and dignity)

h) patron-angel

i) Ruler of rulers (of God)

j) warden

examples given were

so essentially, her mom and dad thought she was a little princess

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
Its by far not the only thing Im going on here. I think names, places, root words between languages are very important. Its amazind to take a look at the many root words in the languages of the middle east area. Out of all the root words that would be in the new nation of God...smack in the middle we find the worst root word, according to hebrew language that is. Still, its just one of the odd things I see.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by undo

See I find that interesting. What if the line that we should of been lookng at was of the woman.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:05 PM
reply to post by smallpeeps

While there is certainly very little, if any, archeological evidence to support Solomon . . . this is the first time I've seen someone attribute Ahmenhotep III to his legend. Interested to what you feel that means about the Menelik/Sheba legend. However, this would explain his mines and wealth, which always seemed to be that piece that never fit with a semetic king.

However, you or anyone else that believes the same, did not explain the David part . . . unless it's implyed that since Solomon is Ahmenhotep III, then David is Thutmose IV . . . Thutmose IV is documented to be a polytheist (of the "old religion").

However, I still don't see any connection with Egypt, other than some religious sybolism and captivity stories, in Judaism . . . languages don't meld, imagery is semetic, Cult of Jupiter responsible for their animorphized god, etc.

I do agree, wholeheartedly, that Christianity is a classic death cult . . . nothing like Judaism at all and ripe with Gnostic themes.

[edit on 10/5/08 by solomons path]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:07 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

because that's not what it says. lol
i mean you are certainly allowed to come up with your own version but don't expect the version that's already been here for thousands of years to change to reflect that.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in