The Water God(s) of Mesopotamia!, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 06:48 AM by seek4 truth

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by undo

I have never seen so many people attempt to drag down Christianity. You were more subtle then others but this is pathetic.

What is pathetic is you are so ignorant you cant even learn because of what they have done to you. This person is on the right track, I know because I have already studied all of this after reading the book "old world secrets the omega project codes". I can not believe people are still so dumbed down as to apply there Nazi religion and claim not learning is what god is all about.

O.P., the breakdown is pretty simple, enki is like the true god and enlil is like the devil. They switched it on us to keep us ignorant, they made learning a sin. It isnt hard at all to figure out once you notice the lies. They did the same thing to all of the slaves in the past just different levels of trying to keep us ignorant based on what they need us for. It is more than likely that Babylon was you might say like the library of alexandria. The whore of Babylon is more than likely the representation of the godess that the romans worshipped, the statue of liberty. You are not supposed to know what they did, that is why it was destroyed, they worshipped the true creator.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by seek4 truth]

reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 07:50 PM by undo

reply to post by seek4 truth

this leans heavily into philosophical territory. however, i'd like to clarify what i believe to be the big secret that got humans into so much trouble (this is my theory based on the texts):

it's all about how you perceive yourself. there's a certain state of mind you would normally adhere to (think of it almost like an instinct), a state of mind that you were originally "programmed" to have. it was in harmony with God and the universe. somewhere along the line, an additional piece of data was spliced in that disrupted the harmony. it wasn't data that we ultimately needed to be in harmony with God and the universe, nor could it make us aware on a level that would be ultimately beneficial... simply put, it was like a discordant note in a beautiful symphony.

it was no big surprise to the symphony writer, that discordant notes could be produced, and it certainly didn't benefit us to be so intimately aware of the existence of discordant notes, but because it was data the symphony writer and some of his other creations, possessed, it was dangled about like a carrot on a stick - - see even YOU can know the discordant notes.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 03:08 AM by Byrd

Originally posted by undo
read it for yourself. it says what it says.
the whole UNIVERSE (it says this) gave speech in one tongue to ENLIL.

now skip down a few lines and we find ENKI, leader of the gods,
the prince defiant, putting contention in the speech of man.

it makes zero sense lol

I suspect it means the writers of the Bible swiped the tale from the Sumerians. The difference in god names signifies who the head god was at the time.

when you read the story of the flood, it says things like ENLIL wanted to end the world because people were too NOISY.

Yes it does, and in fact, the more correct translation is that they were "noisy when they made love" and implied they were doing it all the time.

look at the book of 1enoch, story about the same timeframe, but instead of NOISY it says the planet was a mess, genetically.

Doesn't seem to say that anywhere in the copies I've read. Perhaps you could give me the section and quote the sentences and we can check on the translation. Here's the one I'm using :
www.hermetics.org...

what's it mean when it says NOAH was perfect in his geneations?

Biblical Concordances are your friend:
www.blueletterbible.org...

Says he was upright and honest and faithful.

why does it say that ENKI created monsters?

A challenge between the gods:
www.gatewaystobabylon.com...

Ninmah had created servants but they were imperfect, and Enki gave them useful roles. Then she said she could find a use for any imperfect creation he made, and the bet was made. He made them and she lost the bet.

why does the ENUMA ELISH, the EPIC OF GILGAMESH, The MAHABHARATA, pretty much every piece of EGYPTIAN ART, spend so much time talking about/depicting strange hybrids?

things that make you go hmm...

They don't and they didn't. You may have been shown a very small selection of texts and art from these people.

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 03:28 AM by seek4 truth

reply to post by undo

That would be one way to put it yes, but the reason why they did is going to have an effect on all but who is behind it in the future. When you dont have the ability to get your hands on the right notes, you are no more than their slave waiting for them to decide whether they are going to let you live or die. The harmony of the creator is what the world was said to keep, they took it and put false religions in place. If you are into these new age religions then I am sorry. but you keep digging and you are going to want cry, because most of the world is to far gone to help.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:01 AM by undo

reply to post by Byrd

Byrd,

I really like your mind, your appetite for knowledge and your calm demeanor. I respect your education and extensive database. However, there's one slight problem: You're not being honest with yourself when you respond to some of the points in the thread. I don't want to argue this point. Rather, I'm going to respectfully bow out of further discussion with you on the subject matter of this thread. You don't appear to be currently interested in what I'm trying to say and instead are making gross generalizations. Sorry.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:07 AM by undo

reply to post by seek4 truth

I'm not a new ager. I'm a christian who is attempting to "study to prove (herself) worthy." i'm being brutally honest with the data i am finding. I'm not auto assuming anything that doesn't automatically lend itself to theory or metaphor.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 10:55 AM by Hanslune

Howdy Undo

I beg to differ, you said above to Bryd

You're not being honest with yourself when you respond to some of the points in the thread. I don't want to argue this point. Rather, I'm going to respectfully bow out of further discussion with you on the subject matter of this thread.

Actually she is being honest, and from my point of view, demolishes your concepts rather effectively. It might help here if you were to re-state or summarize what you are trying put forth. I asked earlier what your theory or hypothesis was. Perhaps now would be a good time to do so.

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 11:41 AM by undo

reply to post by Hanslune

she knows precisely what i'm talking about but wants me to drag out all the texts on the subject of genetic disasters from 1enoch. this isn't about 1enoch, but because i mentioned it in defense of yet another trail she lead me off on, we end up with nothing to do with the OP x 100.

she also accused me of using sitchin texts to prove my points, when in fact, i'm quoting actual ancient historical texts that sitchin did not write. this is a tactic people use when it's clear you are making a point that is hard to argue. they try to dirty it by dragging the dreaded sitchin word, in an effort to taint anythign you might have to say afterwards or beforehand. that's not honest. in fact, it's obfuscation. if she wanted to, she could argue the points for themselves, but she falls back on the lazy man's debunking tactic. it's fringe because someone said so. it's not fringe, it's in the text. that is not my fault.

[edit on 31-12-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 11:47 AM by Hanslune

reply to post by undo

Let me ask again then, what is the point you are trying to make?

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:14 PM by undo

reply to post by Hanslune

somewhere along the line, the original meaning of "AB" and "EL" were confused. i tracked the EL thing to Enlil. The etymology chart and the divergent but related linked discussion about it, is on the first page of the thread.

what appears to have happened is, "EL" as a singular god entity, became a generic word for any god by the time of late Akkad, when originally, it only applied to Enlil. Enki wasn't EL. EL was Enlil. Enlil's etymological descendants were Bel, Ba'al, Al'lah, etc, as indicated in the chart on the first page. Only difference is, as indicated in my linked Ba'al vs. Bel thread, that the chart ignores regional dialect differences, thereby allowing the translation that EL is not AL, which is wrong. EL is AL because they both mean, generically-speaking, "god" and they both derive from the same lineage: Enlil, Bel, Ba'al is also Al'lah and Jehovah. same guy (generically but not literally)

[edit on 31-12-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:26 PM by undo

(continued from above)

The AB prefix is the clincher for me. It was reversed by the time of early Babylon. It was no longer AB, but BA (this happens alot in that and subsequent timeframes, reversal of the spelling, like the scribes were all suffering from dyslexia or something). It was also abbreviated in some areas, which you can see in the example of B'el being the same as Ba'al (Same "god", different dialect in same region). The "AB", "B" or "BA" prefix indicates "water", thus ABEL is named after the water god, Enki. I dunno why!

[edit on 31-12-2008 by undo]

reply posted on 31-12-2008 @ 12:59 PM by undo

(see last 2 posts above)

To be more precise on the EL thing, EL is a derivative of IL, which was a derivative of LIL (Enlil) (see chart first page of thread). The farthest back we go is LIL. The name Enlil means "god of the sky (air, heaven)" After studying all of this i'm very skeptical that Ba'alzebub is precisely the god of things that fly in the air. I'd be more inclined to believe the original translation was god of water vehicles, that can also fly in the air -- like a hybrid of the water god and the sky god. no wonder some think jehovah and satan are the same. it's all mixed together by the time of late babylon, so badly, you can barely follow the etymology of it.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^