It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Ancients Series | Part I: Sumerians

page: 14
220
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


How did you come to this conclusion about the Pegasus constellation?


Originally posted by VonDutch

Was the tower a rocket like thing? there is a common idea in religious buildings as we know, the need to reach to the sky. As in a mimicry.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by VonDutch]


Yes, the need to go up is not only consistent with depictions of the tower of Babel, but you only need to look any pyramidal structure from any culture. I would be very tempted to state that the Tower of Babel was in itself an attempt at a pyramid.

reply to post by undo
 




I've read about German Higher Criticism but failed to understand its complete involvement in the schema of things. But you certainly do raise some very good points!

It poses the question, in the mission of dismissing these ancient texts as pure fabrications of events, to what extent did the Church and others involved go to in order to suppress/destroy/manipulate evidence?





posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


well the church didn't have to suppress it, the enlightenment did. the enlightenment was the result of the higher critics trying to disprove everything except the bible and now you can see how that ball started to roll and just kept going. it seeped over into everything, including how texts were translated. for example, the ancient people said things that invariably didn't make sense to the translators, especially considering some of it was still contingent on frame of reference -- missing archaeology, missing science, ya know that kinda thing. next up on the agenda was to revisit how the ancients lived and apply to them the same standards as you might find in an isolated tribe of africa, even 60 years ago. you can have high technology and primitive living on the same continent, in other words, but you wouldn't know it by reading modern era history texts.


it's alot of assumptions that started way back then, before the advent of archaeology, and built upon itself, until you can't have a decent discussion on possible literal translation of anything in ancient texts. as far as the mainstream is concerned, every text of every ancient culture, is a metaphor and a lie.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by undo]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
simple depiction of the e.abzu (pronounced A.abzoo)
thestargates.com...

samuel noah kramer, the first assyriologist to decpiher the sumerian cuneiform, had this to say about the e.abzu in his book "Enki Builds the E-Engurra"


The lord of the abyss, the king Enki, Enki the Lord who decrees the fates, Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli; Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light, The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.
[...]
Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.



what's that sound like to you?

as far as the field constellation, it's in ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER (which i linked to you back when i first started posting in the thread), here's an excerpt


The lord established a shrine, a holy shrine, whose interior is elaborately constructed. He established a shrine in the sea, a holy shrine, whose interior is elaborately constructed. The shrine, whose interior is a tangled thread, is beyond understanding. The shrine's emplacement is situated by the constellation the Field, the holy upper shrine's emplacement faces towards the Chariot constellation.


notice how the translators from oxford, have ignored kramer's earlier translation in which the sea is the abyss not the sea. they vacillate back and forth between calling it the sea or the abzu. they never admit it's the abyss. really quite odd. the etymology is pretty clear.

consider that Enki's E.ABZU "ziggurat" (if you can really call it that), was entirely made of metals, talked, floated, hovered, made "roaring" sounds, glowed so brightly it lit up the area, had an interior that was "a tangled thread beyond understanding," had a door that "seizes a man", was connected to the Field Constellation, and gave advice! This was not an ordinary ziggurat, in fact, it was one of the first prototypes for all subsequent ziggurats, after the flood. However, the subsequent buildings did not have interiors that were "tangled threads beyond understanding!"




[edit on 6-11-2009 by undo]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta...in the mission of dismissing these ancient texts as pure fabrications of events, to what extent did the Church and others involved go to in order to suppress/destroy/manipulate evidence?


If I may reply to your reply to undo, however not on her behalf, this is a campaign which has been waged since antiquity. In truth, I have found the Church has made valiant attempts to preserve rather than destroy original knowledge. Only the egregious errors stand out in memory, such as the destruction of the Popol Vuh and others, but we have not time to recount sins.

More recently, even though I have not studied German higher criticism, there exists a rational bias in the European enlightenment. This has thwarted science and reduced our world view. Why not subject the paranormal to the scientific method? Sadly we lack the academic structure.

And then there is gubmint. The heads are not supposed to know what time it is, but the clerks do, but they are scared to death to open their pieholes. This is the nature of all governments.

Most recently our progress in physics, specifically relating to our understanding of electricity, has suffered (at least?) a hundred year setback. It is directly due to the ossification of academic institutions, unable to admit new knowledge. This is why when you see people on this board involved in topics like yours, many will simultaneously be connected to the other setback issues and they will point out the similarities.

Now I don't necessarily agree with undo's stargate theories in the context of our modern interpretation. They may have had stargates, but nothing like we can imagine. I'll bet you stars bearing water worlds can be dowsed, and methods of translocation exist which have nothing to do with space or time. Understandably this does not get out.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


i'm thinking it started out on a much grander scale and technology to control the physics of it was harnessed so long ago, that it's way out of our reckoning. this is the creation of the universe at the center of galaxies. it's the nun, the chaotic void, the abzu from which the gods were born.... on steroids



go to this link to see it. they've disabled remote viewing of it.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-11-2009 by undo]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Correct me if I'm wrong but the Enlightenment wasn't heavily supported. In fact it was the minority who supported the Enlightenment movement, sapere aude!. The Church really did not support this new wave of thinking; so i just don't see how these people had the power, as a minority, to dismiss ancient recounts.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I am aware of Sag A, three constellations "point" to it. I believe our understanding of what looks like a black hole is erroneous, having not yet established the existence of black holes.

Oh, the theory is cool, you can have these Kerr rotators and you can travel into the past by taking various trips through the light cones between the event horizons. But they only exist in theory as equations, it doesn't mean what is actually going on out there. Trust me, I have seen a lot of theories and discussed many more.

What I believe you are looking at is not really a black hole per se. I see them as the Engines of Creation. They spew out elements for star building. I haven't figured out yet where the primary subatomic particles come from. Otherwise most of the elements have been accounted for.

You see, the universe is not as strange as we can imagine, the Universe is stranger than we CAN imagine. And the open minds get to run with all of it.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

consider that Enki's E.ABZU "ziggurat" (if you can really call it that), was entirely made of metals, talked, floated, hovered, made "roaring" sounds, glowed so brightly it lit up the area, had an interior that was "a tangled thread beyond understanding," had a door that "seizes a man", was connected to the Field Constellation, and gave advice! This was not an ordinary ziggurat, in fact, it was one of the first prototypes for all subsequent ziggurats, after the flood. However, the subsequent buildings did not have interiors that were "tangled threads beyond understanding!"

[edit on 6-11-2009 by undo]


Please correct me if im wrong, but with depictions and descriptions of these ziggurats, are they not all that similar to any pyramids that have been built by other cultures worldwide?

And again i have to ask, is the tower of Babel a pyramid/ziggurat in itself? I think it would turn many heads if modern academia suddenly said; "oh wait, its actually the pyramid of Babel".



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have to admit, it certainly seems like an ancient depiction of a modern spacecraft.

Ancient India had such devices called vaminas, and in their sutras they were much more methodical with their descriptions as a technology. If this turns out to be a common theme in the rest of the OP's series, then we may have some very defined conclusions to draw.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by undo
 


I have to admit, it certainly seems like an ancient depiction of a modern spacecraft.

Ancient India had such devices called vaminas, and in their sutras they were much more methodical with their descriptions as a technology. If this turns out to be a common theme in the rest of the OP's series, then we may have some very defined conclusions to draw.


Just in the process of finishing off an interesting book on Vimanas and the Mahabharata wars all together. Interesting stuff.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


the church WAS this new way of thinking. you understand they were behind it till it turned on them as well. the professors were all catholic priests and such. it was catholic school on a massive, university level, scale. they were accustomed to being the final word on everything knowledge related, and that attitude has prevailed to this day in the universities

they just turned in the catholic priest garb, and went right back to being the guys that know everything




[edit on 7-11-2009 by undo]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


yes i believe it was somewhat pyramidal in shape. but realize my current theory is that the e.abzu was a spaceship not a literal, earthbound building. it could float, hover, submerge, etc



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
i had started a thread called THE WHITE PYRAMID OF CHINA MAY NOT BE THE WHITE PYRAMID OF CHINA. in the course of the thread, i had a huge debate with a former ATS'er named marduk. we went into the subject of the hindus and the mahabharata, you can read it here (read the whole thing. it's a fascinating debate!)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is one of the quotes from it, itself taken from the mahabharata book 18 Svargarohanika Parva

"At the fifth, twice those fruits are his. Ascending a celestial car that resembles the rising sun or a blazing fire, and with the deities for his companions, he goes to Heaven and sports in felicity for myriads of years in the abode of Indra.


www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
mwahaha


So let's entertain the notion that Indra was the storm god. Fair enough. That fits a bit better than sun god, that's for sure. But considering the rest of the texts, the chances are he was just remembered as the "Thunderer" because his iron many headed weapon was a noisy thing that sounded like thunder. how many times did they find iron lightning bolts laying around to call them "iron" in the first place? The only other option is to assume they were lying and that there was no way they could know the composition of "Indra's" lightning bolts was iron, since lightning is not a metal. Certainly if you were to unleash a bomb on a city of technologically primitive people, the survivors would claim iron/metal lightning came down and destroyed their city in a thundering cacophany.

Indra, it seems, modified the weather. This could be a description of Indra, as a storm god, making a storm. Fair enough. but we go right back to the plain fact his lightning is a many headed iron thing. How do we go from white electrical bolts to iron many headed destructive things that destroy entire cities in one fell swoop, i dunno. i think it might have something to do with those pesky German critics who had a complete knee jerk reaction and went to the opposite extreme of belief in the ancient texts to believing everything ancient was either a lie, a delusion or a metaphor. And that the texts had no value to us as historical accounts, therefore, Indra's iron many headed lightning weapon that destroys entire cities in one shot, is just lightning, imagined to be a weapon of a god by the hindu.



owned!

[edit on 7-11-2009 by undo]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have to disagree, the philosophes of the Enlightenment were for the most part, strongly opposed to any organized religion, and hence the Catholic Church. I have researched the Enlightenment and the philosophy behind this zeitgeist for a while and what you're saying makes no sense.

reply to post by undo
 


Aha, i see. But even if this wasn't an actual building, but a craft, its design could have still served as inspiration for the buildings of earthly structures no?


Originally posted by undo
mwahaha


So let's entertain the notion that Indra was the storm god. Fair enough. That fits a bit better than sun god, that's for sure. But considering the rest of the texts, the chances are he was just remembered as the "Thunderer" because his iron many headed weapon was a noisy thing that sounded like thunder. how many times did they find iron lightning bolts laying around to call them "iron" in the first place? The only other option is to assume they were lying and that there was no way they could know the composition of "Indra's" lightning bolts was iron, since lightning is not a metal. Certainly if you were to unleash a bomb on a city of technologically primitive people, the survivors would claim iron/metal lightning came down and destroyed their city in a thundering cacophany.

Indra, it seems, modified the weather. This could be a description of Indra, as a storm god, making a storm. Fair enough. but we go right back to the plain fact his lightning is a many headed iron thing. How do we go from white electrical bolts to iron many headed destructive things that destroy entire cities in one fell swoop, i dunno. i think it might have something to do with those pesky German critics who had a complete knee jerk reaction and went to the opposite extreme of belief in the ancient texts to believing everything ancient was either a lie, a delusion or a metaphor. And that the texts had no value to us as historical accounts, therefore, Indra's iron many headed lightning weapon that destroys entire cities in one shot, is just lightning, imagined to be a weapon of a god by the hindu.



owned!

[edit on 7-11-2009 by undo]


Hehe, interesting. I don't know whether these things were metaphors or eye witness accounts, but im slowly finding my opinion to be developing into a close combination of the two.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


oh but it does. see, the point i'm making is that the guys who started the enlightenment were former catholic priests who had been the university professors and scholars - it was their job to trash ancient history to support the papacy's interpretation of the past, and once they did, they never recanted on any of the aggregious mistakes they made ,which were revealed in the years following the advent of archaeology. their word was final on all things educational, and had been for a very long time. so when it was pointed out that their current theories are based on an incorrect prior pronouncement regarding the ancient texts of whatever culture, the excuse to not recant was: "you don't really want to go back to believing in fairies and dragons do ya?" (heavily paraphrased)



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by serbsta
 


the guys who started the enlightenment were former catholic priests



I, along with many others, see the likes of Voltaire and John Locke as the 'fathers' of the Enlightenment. As far as i know, they were not former Catholic priests.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


the german higher critics were the guys who kick started the enlightenment, and they did so for the reasons i mentioned already. it backfired. then when they were asked to recant their positions on various old texts, once it was found that the texts were actually historically accurate, they refused (not precise, but that could be the fault of assumed interpretation based on lack of reference, as i also mentioned earlier).



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by serbsta
 


the german higher critics were the guys who kick started the enlightenment, and they did so for the reasons i mentioned already. it backfired. then when they were asked to recant their positions on various old texts, once it was found that the texts were actually historically accurate, they refused (not precise, but that could be the fault of assumed interpretation based on lack of reference, as i also mentioned earlier).


I see what you're saying and yes it does make sense, i think i just need to do a bit more reading on German higher criticisms of ancient texts. I suppose it could have been a plan that went all wrong. Would be interesting if someone did a thread on it, presenting some compelling information.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


well you can't very well make a new timeline for history if the old texts already provide one and you don't believe those old texts are worth the paper they're written on. so first thing that they needed to do was to disenfranchise all the old texts except the bible. and just to show you how badly it went off course, imagine that the support for the bible is in the other ancient texts of the older cultures, but you aren't taught that. we are taught that the old cultures established themselves independent of one another. man, that's definitely not true.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by undo]



new topics

top topics



 
220
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join