Anunnaki or Atlantis?

According to Sitching, the Anunnaki created the first humans, which eventually became the first civilization, the Sumerians. But is the story of Atlantis supposed to take place before or after the Sumerians? I've read that even the Sumerians refered to an Atlantian like civ before them. If that's true, then the Sumerians couldn't have been the first civ created by the Anunnaki, or the whole theory is wrong. How does Atlantis tie into the whole Anunnaki theory?

I love what websites try to get us to take for granted...

These Annunaki are NOT our creators. As you can see they themselves were created beings by God in heaven and were assigned to watch over the earth. When they rebelled, they were cast out of heaven, their first estate, although they do still reign in the first and second heavens and inhabit other planets and star systems visiting Earth in UFOs. Many of them, have underground bases here in the earth. In the ensuing years the Theory of Evolution will be discredited from the very founders themselves and their pawns. They will then promote through Government Disinfo Scientists that mankind was created in a test tube by these Annunaki and that these Annunaki are our creators. This is part of the grand delusion and lie at the end of days.

Above is from www.hiddencodes.com...

Which Atlantis are we talking about here? The three-ring middle of the Atlantic Atlantis? So many "destroyed Utopia" stories exist in the world, there were probably more than one. The Bible has the Garden of Eden represented as sort of an Atlantean existence as well as ole' Noah's flood story. I like to place Atlantis in South America - it's spot on right beyond the pillars of hercules in the midst of the Atlantic (the Pacific and Atlantic wouldn't be separate oceans if not for the Americas) and there are traces of ancient civilizations going back beyond tribal indians, especially if you consider the Texas dinosaur-and-man footprints to be legitimate. Well, maybe not so much "traces of civilizations," but traces of man's imprint on his surroundings. Trouble is, America is still above sea level. Inconsequential, really, if the idea is a representation of the fall of greatness.

Of course, this doesn't take into account Quetzelcoatl and whatnot, whom many believe was an Atlantean.

Whoops, looks like I've gotta digress here. I've spoken a lot without saying much

EDIT: Oops, well, here goes some evidence for both the ancient man in America as well as a flood in America:

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Divers making dangerous probes through underwater caves near the Caribbean coast have discovered what appears to be one of oldest human skeletons in the Americas, archaeologists announced at a seminar that was ending on Friday.

The report by a team from Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History exploits a new way of investigating the past. Most coastal settlements by early Americans now lie deep beneath the sea, which during the Ice Age was hundreds of feet lower than now.

Above is from www.abovetopsecret.com...

Zip

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Zipdot]

The Annunakie I akin to the christian belief in god.. and I do not put much energy into worrying about the validity of either. I think they are little more than an attempt to explain things we do not understand to aleviate fear in the common mans mind about life and death and our purpose.. does there really have to be one?
At any rate I digress... Atlantis was older than the sumerians so yes... the annunakie story does not hold water.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by NephraTari]

Originally posted by mdcclxxvi
According to Sitching, the Anunnaki created the first humans, which eventually became the first civilization, the Sumerians.

Sitchin very badly mistranslates the cuneiform tablets. However, yes, they believed that humans were created by their gods.

But is the story of Atlantis supposed to take place before or after the Sumerians?
The Babylonians never heard of Atlantis.

They do have some king lists that list kings living for thousands of years (note: take this with a grain of salt. Yes, they list thousands of years reigns but the physical evidence shows that the kings didn't live any longer than people do today.) The Babylonian civilization existed before Plato, so they do pre-date the Plato story about Atlantis.

Plato is the ONLY ancient source mentioning Atlantis, and he does it as a teaching story.

I've read that even the Sumerians refered to an Atlantian like civ before them.

No, they didn't. There are a lot of the cuneiform texts online and if you take the trouble to read them, you'll see that this just isn't true.

If that's true, then the Sumerians couldn't have been the first civ created by the Anunnaki, or the whole theory is wrong. How does Atlantis tie into the whole Anunnaki theory?

Atlantis is a story made up by Socrates to prove a point (written down by his student, Plato.)

The Anunnaki are Babylonian gods. There's nothing about them creating anyone else.

There are older civilizations than Babylon and the Sumerians. None of them, by the way, mention the Annunaki or Atlantis.

this hasnt been posted in years,, but i think alantis is not real, or is an alien city.. there have been no real proof of this

lol tomo.. thats why people are here.. to speculate, an contemplate.

what the hell does that mean bongo

Sitchin does one more thing, besides translation errors. He makes an assumption on, lets say, page 10. Then on page 20 he makes another assumption based on the first one, only he refers to the first one as "we have already established that..", like it is a fact.

Now, about translations: we can never be sure how to translate dead languages of long forgotten civilisations. We don't know how they used their language.
I'll give an example. Astronaut. The word we use today. Somebody figured out in 17th century that it is cool to use greek and latin words in scientific "language", so we do that. To people on this planet there is no need to translate the word astronaut, we all know what that is. It means star sailor, but that has no relevance to us. Now, imagine some huge catastrophe, only a few 1000 people survive, they live in stone age for millenia, develop civilisation, the language has completely changed and english doesn't exist anymore. They try to translate ancient texts, they are aware of the fact that we mixed languages a lot. They find the word astronaut, TRANSLATE it, and say "oh these ancient people sent star sailors to moon, how ridiculous!!". Maybe they have developed language in which metaphors are used a LOT to descibe things. They see that our scientific language lacks that, so our astronauts are just a myth.

We have the same problems when translating ancient texts. We DON'T KNOW how they perceived their language, how they used words, we can translate every word in an ancient text but still be completely wrong about the meaning of it. Or we translate words that are actually names of certain objects, and by doing that they completely lose their meaning.

wow very explained. thanx this puts things into perspective

Originally posted by paperclip
Sitchin does one more thing, besides translation errors. He makes an assumption on, lets say, page 10. Then on page 20 he makes another assumption based on the first one, only he refers to the first one as "we have already established that..", like it is a fact.

Now, about translations: we can never be sure how to translate dead languages of long forgotten civilisations. We don't know how they used their language.
I'll give an example. Astronaut. The word we use today. Somebody figured out in 17th century that it is cool to use greek and latin words in scientific "language", so we do that. To people on this planet there is no need to translate the word astronaut, we all know what that is. It means star sailor, but that has no relevance to us. Now, imagine some huge catastrophe, only a few 1000 people survive, they live in stone age for millenia, develop civilisation, the language has completely changed and english doesn't exist anymore. They try to translate ancient texts, they are aware of the fact that we mixed languages a lot. They find the word astronaut, TRANSLATE it, and say "oh these ancient people sent star sailors to moon, how ridiculous!!". Maybe they have developed language in which metaphors are used a LOT to descibe things. They see that our scientific language lacks that, so our astronauts are just a myth.

We have the same problems when translating ancient texts. We DON'T KNOW how they perceived their language, how they used words, we can translate every word in an ancient text but still be completely wrong about the meaning of it. Or we translate words that are actually names of certain objects, and by doing that they completely lose their meaning.

By that you're admitting that Sitchin COULD be right, since no one knows exactly how to translate it and how to use the language one mans "crackpot" theory should hold as much water as mainstream translations. Are there people out there that can help support Sitchins claims, I know a lot has been said to the contrary, but I'm interested in hearing the other side.

Originally posted by paperclip
Sitchin does one more thing, besides translation errors. He makes an assumption on, lets say, page 10. Then on page 20 he makes another assumption based on the first one, only he refers to the first one as "we have already established that..", like it is a fact.

Quite true.

Now, about translations: we can never be sure how to translate dead languages of long forgotten civilisations. We don't know how they used their language.

Y'know, there's an awful lot of scholars who would disagree with that. While there ARE some words that we don't know the meaning of, in cases where there's a lot of text (cuneiform texts) we can extrapolate meaning from multiple contexts.

Maybe they have developed language in which metaphors are used a LOT to descibe things. They see that our scientific language lacks that, so our astronauts are just a myth.

I'd dispute that. We do know a lot of obscure metaphors (the one that comes to mind is the Egyptian "two ladies" title) and similies from context. Living descendants of an ancient language can tell us quite a bit about content and usage.

On the thought on the lost language translations... I dunno... but thats very well put and also very flexable statement...

I read that the Anunnaki and their planet are responsible for the sinking of Atlantis because they disrupted the (spiritual?) frequencies of planet Earth causing natural disasters. They posed as gods to the Atlanteans, and later visited the Sumerians and Egyptians.

The Anunnaki did not create us, they interfered with the "Great Experiment". Other beings in the Galaxy wanted fruitfull Earth to be populated by spiritual enlightened beings, Homo Sapiens. The Anunnaki had discovered Earth first however, and wanted Earth for themselves.

Thus they interfered by aducting and starting genetic experiments. They disabled several DNA strands thus limiting our potential.

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Ice^^Heat]

Originally posted by Byrd
There are older civilizations than Babylon and the Sumerians.

There are? I always thought and read that the Chaldeans/Sumerians had the first civilization.

The King List, if I remember correctly, predated the Great Deluge... gads, where was I going?... Umm... OH! I agree with Byrd, they didn't have an Atlantis tale.

Other than that, I lost my train of thought...

Perhaps you could list some sources that show that Sitchin's translation of Sumerian texts are as wrong and misinterpreted as you claim?

Sitchin seems to translate tablets that would appear to contradict what you say about the Anunnaki never creating us. Infact that line of arguement would seem to go against most epics of creation from most cultures throughout history

Atlantis is a story made up by Socrates to prove a point (written down by his student, Plato.)

You know how I disagree when it comes to Atlantis, hehe...

There are THREE points where Plato reinforces that this is a TRUE tale...

Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true

And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?

I believe in Atlantis and all that, too... I just wanted to make this comment before someone else does...

In the beginning of the 1980's movie Return of the Living Dead (the poster had skeleton's with day-glow mohawks), there was a disclaimer: "Based on a True Story".

Okay, that may have been a bit extreme... but I hope others will understand. Just because someone said it's true doesn't mean it is. If that were the case, when it comes to Lovecraft's tales, we'd all be hurting.

Good point, but I fail to see how Plato's vivid description of measurements, etc. would have been necessary if only a narrative story. He gives EVERY impression of recounting a HISTORICAL place. The Egyptians themselves have in their ancient histories, a war with the "sea people" which are distinctly different from the known Phoenicians...

Couple this with the EXACTLY matching topography of South America with the continent, and the city with that of the Altiplano. Then look at the local legends of a great city destroyed by a flood, the red-white-black stone of the ruins, the matching measurements, high yet joining the sea, alternating bands of land and sea, orichalcum, etc. and you have to admit it's at least a compelling arguement...

I seem to recall TROY being argued as a fictional place too... Until they found it of course...

Originally posted by soothsayer

Originally posted by Byrd
There are older civilizations than Babylon and the Sumerians.

There are? I always thought and read that the Chaldeans/Sumerians had the first civilization.

Oh, heavens no... not by a long shot -- though it may depend on what you mean by "civilization." They had the first large cities, but there are smaller towns and cities on other continents.

7200 BC -- Ain Ghazal: menic.utexas.edu...

4,000 BC - Yarmutra (underwater) off Tyre: www.metimes.com...

...and so forth. There are Stone Age towns/villages (about 20,000 years old) around as well.

Originally posted by Gazrok
He gives EVERY impression of recounting a HISTORICAL place. The Egyptians themselves have in their ancient histories, a war with the "sea people" which are distinctly different from the known Phoenicians...

Source?

You know I'll go check the original, wicked thing that I am. I've never seen any citation of this.