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.


Reptilian DNA

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 09:08 AM
I'll have to do a study on Elohiym as plural. I know the hebrews also used the plural form as a singular form as well for that particular word, but I would be remiss not to check into it further so I can comment on it at length.

BTW, check out this spiffy painting by Boris Vallejo of "Elijah" and the prophets of Baal. The painting is Gorgeous! But he doesn't show the intensity of the event, as it says the fire consumed everything on the altar, including the altar (which was much bigger than depicted here), and all the water in the trench around it as well. No doubt a spectacular light show.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Undomiel]

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:05 AM
That is quite beautiful. I have not seen that before. I need to get back into the old canvas slappin' myself. It has been awhile.


posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 01:02 PM
I don't have much luck starting new threads, so if you don't mind, I'd like to insert a small bit of information concerning sumerian genetics I found on Sitchin's website. Personally, I think the man is a genius, although I don't agree with him entirely, he makes some great points. This, however, is a point I don't agree with him on: Quoting from his website

In a chapter titled “The Creation of Man” I quoted passages from various clay-tablet texts that provided details of the Creation of Man process – How Enki, the chief scientist of the Anunnaki, suggested that an already existing being could be upgraded by mixing Anunnaki genes with the humanoid ones; how Ninti, the chief medical officer of the Anunnaki (and Enki’s half-sister) performed the gene-mixing; and how the resulting “clay” was used to impregnate fourteen “birth goddesses,” to become pregnant with seven males and seven females!

Notice here that he says the clay tablets call Enki the chief scientist of the Annunaki. Even IF the clay tablets said that (other sumerian cuneiform experts disagree with Sitchin's interpretations), Enki is not a real personage of ancient sumeria, as I explained in an earlier post. In Sitchin's interpretation he has the tablets referring to Enki as a single individual of male persuasion. It just ain't so. Enki was a fictitious character, composed of 2 earlier sumerian figures "AN" and "KI". An was a male Fallen Angel/Annunaki and Ki was most likely a human female taken/abducted for breeding purposes. Now either the sumerians messed up their own history (which is possible given the passage of time and modifications, written errors, prejudice, power struggles, etc) or Sitchin's interpretation is hosed or Sitchin's deliberately making up stories to fit his view of evolution.

(More on the Elohiym thing soon)

[edit on 12-6-2004 by Undomiel]

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:10 PM
Which came first, Sumerian tales or Biblical tales, seems to be a sticking point for Sitchin. He wants to believe that Alulim's reign or "sect" reigned for 28,000-36,000 earth years. In fact, he's willing to believe that before he's willing to entertain the notion that the prior calculations of the sumerian numbering system employed by interpreters was incorrect. Here's a passage from a site that seeks to explain the error in time calculations. I quote a passage from it here:

But, as we have noted, there was the alternative value to the Saros. This shorter value was first reported by Suidas, a Greek lexicographer of whom little or nothing is known except that he must have lived before Eustathius (12th‹13th century A.D.) who frequently quoted him. Under the heading ADAM, Suidas in his lexicon gives a brief chronology of the world ending with the death of the Emperor John Zimisces (975 A.D.). This would indicate that Suidas lived in the latter part of the tenth century. His lexicon is in the nature of a dictionary and encyclopedia combined, and it includes numerous quotations from ancient writers such as Aristophanes, Homer, Sophocles, and Thucydides. A prefatory note gives a list of earlier dictionaries, and although the work is somewhat uncritical it contains much information on ancient history and life. It also gives the length of reigns of the antediluvian Kings in Sari. But at this point Suidas informs us that this unit of measurement had a double value among the Babylonians. His words are: (251)

Sari are, with the Chaldeans, both a measure and a number. . . . According to the calculations of the Chaldeans, the saros contains 222 lunar months which is equivalent to 18 years and 6 months.

The mathematics of Suidas can be bothersome unless one realizes that he is using a year of 360 days and a month of 30 days. With these equivalents his figures of 222 months does work out at 18 years and 6 months. But the modern Saros which is given the value of 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours does not satisfy his calculation. The point is not important unless one is a mathematical purist. From the point of view of Suidas, we simply have an alternative value of the Saros attributed to the Babylonians which makes an enormous difference to the figures in the tabulation of Berossus as will be seen from the following:



I. ALORUS 10 185
2. ALAPAROS 3 55.5
3. AMELON 13 240.5
4. AMMENON 12 222
5. AMEGALAROS 18 333
6. DAONOS 10 183
7. EDPRANCHOS 18 333
8. AMEMPSINOS 10 185
9. OTIARTES 8 148
10. XISUTHROS 18 333
TOTALS 120 2220

251. Suidas: from F. A. Jones, The Dates of Genesis, London, Kingsgate Press, 1912, p.114.

It should be borne in mind that the figures given by Berossus are not life spans as in Genesis but lengths of reigns. The average length of reign from the above Table will be seen to be 222 years, which is far more reasonable than the figure of 4320 years which is the average length of reign according to Berossus' list when calculated on the basis of the higher value of the Saros. If we assume that each King ascended to the "throne" upon the death of his predecessor, we can add together the ten successive reigns and take this to be the total period from Adam to the Flood.

BTW, Alorus, also known as Alulim, is Adam if this is correct. If you recall the earlier table I showed you concerning the antediluvian kings is the same. In fact, the sumerian tales document, during the reign of the 10th king Ziusudra (Noah), a flood took place in which the animals of the kingdom had to be loaded onto a boat to keep them from drowning in the flood:

1. Alulim (Adam)
2. Alalgar (Seth)
3. Kidunnu (Enosh)
4. Alimma (Kenan)
5. Enmenluanna (Mahalalel)
6. Dumuzi (Jared)
7. Ensipazianna (Enoch)
8. Enmenduranna (Methuselah)
9. Sukurlam (Lamech)
10. Ziusudra (Noah)

If this is true, the bible story and the sumerian cuneiforms are documenting the same exact events at precisely the same time, so neither one predates the other, the only difference being the modification of the stories by the Fallen Angels/Annunaki, who laid claim to creation of humans when they created their nephillim offspring.

Sitchin accounts for this creation by claiming that Adam and Eve (or the first "humans" ever created by the Annunaki in his interpretation) were in fact part Annunaki and part Homo erectus - this is in fact, NOT Adam and Eve but the first nephilim, as the Annunaki had not arrived on the planet in the days of Adam but several generations later in the days of King Dumuzi (Jared), the 6th antediluvian king.

Now onto the story of Elohiym. In Strong's Concordance, the word "Elohiym" has many possible interpretations:

plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

Take special note of the phrase "but specifically used of the Supreme God". I'm assuming the hebrews had appointed this terminology for Jehovah Elohiym, as He was viewed as the supreme God of all the gods. Since the text was written some time after the fact, and the stories were carried on until that time in oral tradition or in some form of cuneiform, sanskrit or hieroglyphics, it's fairly safe to assume that in retrospect, He would be considered the supreme God of all the gods the ancient hebrews had encountered. I think of it like saying, All japanese cars are great, but Nisan is the supreme japanese car! Or eating is superior to starving, or color is better than black and white, or getting an "A" on your report card is preferable to getting a "B", etc.

[edit on 12-6-2004 by Undomiel]

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:32 PM
This is all very intesting. Lots of math involved, which I am not very good at.

I am going to have to study this. With this information , I want to see if I can get a more accurate timeline for Sitchins Nibiru theory, If you are right, then he is way off.


posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 04:06 PM
The recalculated figure for the first ten kings is 2220 years from the first antediluvian king of sumeria, till the 10th. I'm not sure what he's using for his calculations for the arrival of Nibiru, btw. Can you list them here? I'm not sold on his Nibiru thing in the first place.

posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 08:10 PM
Sitchin has basically added to my theory for me, as he relates his theories about the Olmecs of South America, and I quote him now:

The peoples of Mesoamerica employed in addition to a practical calendar of 365 days, called the Haab, also a Sacred Calendar (called Tzolkin) of 260 days. The two cyclical calendars were conceived as two wheels with meshing teeth that turned and returned to the same spot once in 52 years; and 52 was the Sacred Number of the Winged Serpent god?

Since 52 was also the Secret Number of the god known to the Egyptians as Thoth; since Thoth as Quetzalcoatl, was the god of science and the calendar; and since Thoth was exiled from Egypt circa 3100 B.C., I have suggested that it was he who took a group of his African followers to a new land, bringing the "Olmecs" to Mesoamerica.

What is particularly interesting about his theory is the timeline. 3000 BC is approximately the same time frame for the introduction of civilization to the wandering tribal peoples all over the planet. In fact, here's something I wrote on the subject a year ago:

In the Egyptian Book of the Dead there are prayers for deliverance from the Watchers (Tchatcha, the princes of Osiris) , who came from Ta-Ur, the "Far Away Land." Ta-Ur is Ur in Sumeria! - Sitchin

It's interesting to note here that the passage says "From which the gods had come to Egypt." Remember, the Annunaki [Sons of God - Angels, and in the case of the Annunaki, FALLEN angels] had not been imprisoned yet. Satan and his cohorts were still intermingling and interfering with the human species on a massive scale. [...]

Another interesting note is the fact the Egyptians felt they needed to be delivered FROM the gods of Sumeria who had come to their land. The egyptians were praying to be SAVED from Tchatcha, the princes of Osiris. Literally, they were praying for deliverance FROM the Sons of God - not deliverance BY - but FROM! [...]

Establishing the Timeframe for the arrival of the Annunaki to the Earth.

Two major events happened simultaneously -

1) Human civilization sprung up across the globe
2) The Annunaki arrive on the planet.

According to our current dating methods, the earliest civilization was in Sumer (Sumeria, Shinar, Land of the Watchers). It was here that the Annunaki first descended to the planet. Not much later other civilizations sprung up almost immediately and simultaneously in various places:

The Antediluvian Timetable of Mesopatamian Civilization

Ubaid 5000-3500 B.C.
Uruk 3500-3100 B.C.
Jemdet Nasr 3100-2900 B.C. Annunaki arrive
Early Dynastic I-III 2900-2350 B.C.

The Antediluvian Timetable of Ancient Egyptian Civilization:

Predynastic until 3000
Archaic 3000 -- 2700 Annunaki arrive
OLD KINGDOM 2700 -- 2200

The Antediluvian Timetable of Nubia Civilization:

3000 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The Antediluvian Timetable of Chinese Civilization:

2637 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The Antediluvian Timetable of Indian (India) Civilization:

3000 to 2350 Annunaki arrive

The key word here is civilization. Prior to this time, humans were pretty much nomadic and uncivilized. With the influx of the Annunaki, we were taught the practices of warfare, medicine, weaponry, magic, architecture, writing, languages, religion, etc. What had once been a fairly uneventful and sedate life of food gathering and wandering, turned into a complex, organized system of cities with libraries and alphabets and languages and astrological charts, etc. The ancient Sumerians had established not just a language, but a specialized language - one for males, one for females. You had to learn, not just one language, but two, in order to communicate with one another.

This occured, as you can see from the above Antediluvian Timetables, almost simultaneously in places that were separated from each other by thousands of miles. As I indicated in the Circle of the Earth thread, it occured in a ring around the entire planet, along which not only did civilization and writing spring up, but various MAJOR religions did as well. The world's first known written languages, Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneiform, were also developed along this line of ancient sites. The Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Brahman and Buddhist religions, as well as ancient Egyptian and Peruvian religions, also sprang up along this line.

The Book of Enoch outlines this sudden arrival of civilization:


Sitchin's Olmec theories support the same findings. Around 5000 years ago or around 3000 BC, nephillim and civilization started springing up all around the world. The comparative 500 years or so prior to that, give plenty of wiggle room for the original non-nephillim humans. I happen to agree with Sitchin's Olmec theory and find it very plausible for several reasons, the least of which is the fact it agrees with all the other information and for the cherry on top, it brings pyramids, Annunaki (Thoth) and egyptians (who were of nubian, black and semetic descent) to South America

[edit on 12-6-2004 by Undomiel]

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 03:54 AM
Commenting on the Egyptians.

I have argued over and over with friends that the Egyptians were black.

Many argue that Moses was black.

The biggest arguement is about Cleopatra who some say was really blonde and very pale. I am not so sure of that , but we know she wasn't black. It would also appear that none of the Phaeros were black. My guess is that the Pharoes were either off-spring of the Nephilim or some other extra-terrestrail race.

I also read somewhere that they found coca leaves in the mouths of some mummies in Egypt. The only place where the coca plant would have been found in that time was in South America. We know that they didn't have sea or air transportation. Or did they? How did they aquire coca leaves?

In my sig banner you will see a statue of Queen Nefertiti. Notice the elongated skull. And if you have ever seen the Phaeros masks they all were very tall and long , as if to be fitted for an elongated skull. And some masks , such as Tutankhamuns mask, is made of so much gold that it weighs 24 pounds. But some say he only wore this mask in death.

Some scientists say that Phaeros binded their skulls from birth to achieve an elongated skull, much like the Pa Dong Long Neck people of the Karen tribe in Africa. The question is why? Are they trying to resemble something?

I have also heard, I don't know how true it is , that the word Annunaki, means Long Neck. Have you heard this?


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 09:22 AM
Hmm, seems like I have read that somewhere, I just don't recall where. Anyway, do you have a listing of the figures Sitchin uses to pinpoint the arrival of Nibiru? I agree with him that there is a possibility of another planet out there, but a travelling one that comes to earth sounds incorrect. Perhaps the spaceship he saw was round, spheroid, and very big, giving the impression of a planet or moon or other passing planetary body? How does he determine this information? What examples is he using besides the cuneiform solar system?

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:19 PM
I will have to look this up.

I will have a go at it this evening and get back to you on it.

I find researching on the internet is becoming quite tedious these days. There are so many people 'borrowing' ideas and then adding to them as they go along. So it is becoming difficult to find the original material.

This is why 'I am" gave us judgement.


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:50 PM
Ok off the topic a bit but anyone notice the similarities between Christian religion and Egyptian. Christ being the son of god. Horus being the son of a god. and so on and so one. There are so many of them I working on a list. report back soon

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Kriskaos
Ok off the topic a bit but anyone notice the similarities between Christian religion and Egyptian. Christ being the son of god. Horus being the son of a god. and so on and so one. There are so many of them I working on a list. report back soon

Not off topic at all, this has been discussed on this thread.

There are so many similaritys in many religions. In a previous post I pointed out the Matrix trilogy and how it took so many religions and melted them all down into one basic idea. Faith. Not many are willing to do this. Wars are fought over religion. It seems no one wants to give other ideas a chance. This is called Dogma.

It is inherent in the fact that Jews and Catholics aren't allowed to marry. Is this because of genetics? No. All catholics are not Italian and all Jews are not Israeli. They both believe in the same basic principals but with varying ideas. And they are ideas. Fundamentally, what people believe in one religion is no more accurate historicly than what one believes in another religion.

I believe that we need to embrace every religion and try to understand them. There is truth to all and in all are lies. It is up to us to discern which is which. And to do that we need to use that which is common in all religions. Faith.

Welcome to our discussion. I look forward to reading your ideas.


[edit on 13-6-2004 by nutzobalzo]

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:04 PM
According to the information thus far, a son of God or god, is anyone who claims to have divine descendency. The angels claim this. Christians claim this through Christ (spiritually not physically). The hebrews claimed it through Jehovah Elohiym (physically and spiritually). The ancient egyptian gods claimed it and they (Annunaki/Fallen Angels) had offspring (nephilim), who also claimed it. The ancient sumerian gods (Annunaki/Fallen Angels) had offspring that also claimed it. Etc. Your efforts, although appreciated, only prove my point even further - that the Annunaki/Fallen Angels (Sons of God) have been very busy, in a global way.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:09 PM
o tottaly the matrix is basiclly the bible story adapted if you think abou it.

now here is what I found

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through Him."
- John 1: 1-3

"The world itself came into existence through the utterance of a word by Thoth."
- Quoted by E. A. Wallis Budge, Egyptian Magic

"Whereas the Ennead of Atum came into being by his semen and his fingers, the Ennead [came into being according to Memphite theology by] the teeth and lips in this mouth, which pronounced the name of everything, from which Shu and Tefnut came forth, and which was the fashioner of the Ennead."
- Shabaka inscription, 1.55

"With this sentence we have arrived at the quintessence of the doctrine of creation through the word.
"It is 'the mouth which pronounced the name of everything from which Shu and Tefnut came forth, followed by the world of nature and ordered human history, embodied in the Ennead."
"The theology of Memphis also tells us how the creative words came about: they are 'what the heart thought and the tongue commanded', i.e., they are produced by the deity in that part of his body which is the seat of life and thought, and are then made known as an utterance."
- Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion

"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'"
- Book of Revelation 1:8

"I am the Universe, Past, Present and Future; no mortal made the acquitance of me."
- Sanctuary of Neith in Sais (Plutarch and Proclos)

Neith/Neit/Nath was the (early) Egyptian goddess of war whose worship was centered in Sais, in Western Delta of Nile River. Her site was in a sycamore tree.

notice the tree reference

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
-Matthew 28:19

"One is Bait, one is Hathor, one is Akori - to these belongs one power. Be greeted, father of the world, be greeted, God in three forms."
- Amulet (falcon-headed Bait, frog-headed Hathor & winged serpent Akori - 100 C.E.)

"This distich contains the ['God is One'] acclamation...which goes back at least to the Amon theology of the Rameside period; the one God (father of the cosmos) has as attributes (to use the Egyptian terminology) three hprw or b'w, 'forms' or 'appearance', the three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular."
- Seigfreid Morenz, Egyptian Religion

The ancient Egyptians believed that there was a time when nothing had existed, when "the sky had not yet coming into being, the earth had not yet come into being, the gods had not yet been born, and death had not yet come into being," as Pyramid Text 1466 had stated. For the Egyptians, creation was essentially an act of generation, and the generative principle was represented by the yearly flooding of the Nile River, and its waters seemed like the primeval waters, as they left in their wake mounds of fertile black soil. Out of these primeval waters rose the god Atum, source of all generated being. Sitting on the primeval mound that rose above the chaotic waters (or was left behind in its wake), Atum created out of himself the deities Shu and Tefnut.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:15 PM
We don't have an argument as far as similarities to the original creator God stories, as I believe all the people on the planet knew the creator God originally, and were lead away from it by the arrival of the Annunaki/Fallen Angels who did miracles involving the natural realm in the eyes of the people, convincing them that they were indeed "the creator gods" worthy of worship. Have you read the rest of the thread?

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:18 PM
Yes I have read the whole thing twice. I know what you are saying im just imputing and showing that it is basiclly the same story. But what really gets me as the orign of the angels. That is what Im trying to fig all come from heaven but how were they created who sent them. And all show that man was created in the image of them.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:25 PM
Homosapians weren't created in the image of angels, the nephilim were.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:26 PM
ok this blew my mind to
And so, "the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:21-25).
Taking a rib ( DNA sample)

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:34 PM
so your saying that we were created in the image of the Nephilim which were as the bible says ( cast out angels demons) so we dont look like god but these angel aliens????

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 01:39 PM
ok another thing eve took the apple first right comminting sin now look

One of the evil objectives of the sexual union of fallen angels and women was to create a non-human society on earth which would become impossible to be redeemed according to the Plan of God established before the foundation of the world. That Plan of Salvation has always been exclusive for humans and not for hybrids, neither for any rebellious angelic beings.

So could have been punishment from God that we were made in the image of these Nephellim

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in