Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Sitchin - Catholic Problem

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
excerpted from my ebook on the subject

Samuel Noah Kramer, an assyriologist who was the first to translate many of the sumerian texts, said 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.

-----

just as an aside i tried to depict what i thought the scene might have looked like with a little artistic embellishment. obviously not the whole city of eridu lol



edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I am having difficulty with your reply.
What I am looking for is the definitive translation of the Sumerian Tablets instead of the gobbledygook that is being spouted. Surely the authorities can come up with something that we can understand - or are they being prevented?
Some people are quick to bring Sitchin into the conversation which brings in a flow of de-bunkers. On a different thread someone quoted "Plato" to which some wag enquired as to what this had to do with Mickey Mouse's dog?
We seem to be getting similar confusing responses.
There is much more research needed and some clear translation agreed too on this subject.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
reply to post by undo
 


I am having difficulty with your reply.
What I am looking for is the definitive translation of the Sumerian Tablets instead of the gobbledygook that is being spouted. Surely the authorities can come up with something that we can understand - or are they being prevented?
Some people are quick to bring Sitchin into the conversation which brings in a flow of de-bunkers. On a different thread someone quoted "Plato" to which some wag enquired as to what this had to do with Mickey Mouse's dog?
We seem to be getting similar confusing responses.
There is much more research needed and some clear translation agreed too on this subject.


what goobedly gook?
it's in their texts. i've read Enki's Journey to Nibru, on the ETCLS
Enki and the World Order, on ETCLS
Enki and Ninmah on ETCLS.
Enlil and Ninlil on ETCLS
Inanna's descent to the netherworld
etc
I've studied The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Enuma Elish, The Story of Atrahasis, The Pyramid Texts, The Book of the Dead, The Book of Gates, The Book of What is in the Amduat, The Legend of the Destruction of Mankind, the Bible in various translations, The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jasher, The Book of Giants, The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, various books in The Apocrypha, the Babylonian Talmud, Gnostic Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, The Story of Adam and Eve.
a few thousands years of history that you're calling goobedly gook.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Kramer earned his Ph.D. in 1929, and was famous for assembling tablets recounting single stories that had become distributed among different institutions around the world. He retired from formal academic life in 1968, but remained very active throughout his post-retirement years.

In his autobiography published in 1986, he sums up his accomplishments: "First, and most important, is the role I played in the recovery, restoration, and resurrection of Sumerian literature, or at least of a representative cross section . . . Through my efforts several thousand Sumerian literary tablets and fragments have been made available to cuneiformists, a basic reservoir of unadulterated data that will endure for many decades to come. Second, I endeavored . . . to make available reasonably reliable translations of many of these documents to the academic community, and especially to the anthropologist, historian, and humanist. Third, I have helped to spread the name of Sumer to the world at large, and to make people aware of the crucial role the Sumerians played in the ascent of civilized man" [3].

Kramer died at age 93 on November 26, 1990 in the United States.

-----------

obviously the guy was no slouch, and in his book Enki Builds the E. Engurra, Enki, after creating the city of Eridu in the Abyss, raised it up, and floated it over the water. What's that mean to you? Absolutely nothing but goobedly gook. And that's the issue. If you don't read it and learn why it says that, you will never know and can just go around for the rest of your time on the planet going "goobedly gook, goobedly gook" with your fingers in your ears.
edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   



it's no small wonder even people who believe the bible is telling the truth, have no idea what it actually says most of the time. it's just goobedly gook to them. so learn to speak goobedly gook and then you'll know what it means, perhaps?

and the fellow who calls sumerian texts goobedly gook is probably not a believer in the bible either. so this is a pandemic, not just an epidemic. how can you possibly give an accurate criticism of something you don't even understand?

shrug.

edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
evidence of the problem:

a sitchinite and acharya s. duke it out
net-prophet.net...

she's completely convinced everything ancient is a cosmology and all the actors are simply metaphorical devices. he's completely convinced the bible is complete crap but the sumerian texts are pretty legit (thanks zecharia) and who knows how much of it he's actually read and understood as anything other than goobedly gook, fingers in ears.

flat earth
www.lhup.edu...
vs.
www.veritas-ucsb.org...

flood
www.godandscience.org...
vs.
www.globalflood.org...

how do we establish a viable communication on these subjects if neither side will hear the other out and just start saying "goobedly gook"? I.DON'T.KNOW! I wish i did, cause it's darn frustrating.

the most frustrating thing is having people refer to papal writs as their reason for calling ancient history a bunch of lies and fairy tales and referring to sitchin about anything related to sumer. for gads sakes people. don't let those folks tell you what it means. go read it yourself! go learn what the original languages said. see what words were added by translators. learn it before you toss it in the wastebin.


edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 
Interesting undo ...I have to confess to being guilty of not understanding and not willing to consider the incredible underlying stories in the Bible ...I think in a way it had more to do with trying to understand the milk of the word ....I can remember as a young Christian being given a chunk of meat ( Calvin ..predestine doctrine ) it took me quite a time to unlearn the foolish notions that came into my mind ...Its still a subject that is a big question with me and probably with many others ....I am listening to your interview with Michael Heiser and finding it enjoyable ,thanks ... I wish I could add to your topic other than saying you wont find much unity in consensus .The majority of RC is completely questionable while I cant even imagine trying to look at Mr.Sitchin and his work. You see I am not a scholar and never will be ,but I love the truth ..And it seems that the smallest amount of truth can move a mountain of untruths .I guess we just take the crumbs and try and grow ....thanks once again for your contribution to knowing the truth ..peace



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


he's helpful. if i encounter real tough points, after checking every language text i can find, i ask him if he has come across the word and what it originally meant. for example, i had this dilemma regarding EN.LIL. i had come across a website that had done an etymological study on the name, and he did it to prove to himself and his readers, that the muslims were worshipping a pagan god, who he called EN.LIL. the etymology was rock solid, but it had a flaw: it refused to acknowledge, as part of its root etymology the "EL" root. this is because if he acknowledged the EL root, he would be forced to come to grips with the potentiality of EL ever being a pagan god or worshipped by pagans in any way, shape or form.

Here's where he really went off track. The word pagan was (sigh) developed by the catholic church to denote anyone who wasn't christian or jewish. In effect, there's really no such thing as a pagan. Each belief system really needs their own name, not a one size fits all stamp. Not only is inaccurate, it's unfair and evidence of generational bias of a magnitude of unbelievable proportions. Sadly, once again, this teaching of calling anything non judeo-christian, pagan, has caused no end of confusion. And the EL problem is an example of a very bad one. Modern day judaism is even confused by it. As modern jews are no more representative of ancient hebrews than modern christians are representative of the disciples of jesus.

as i was trying to unravel it, i made a thread about it here on ats, called Ba'al vs. Bel. This is the jist of it:

the etymology chart for enlil
www.balaams-ass.com...

The root form of IL is not EL, it's LIL, because EnLIL came before (timeframe wise) IL, which is the contracted form of LIL and so on and so on.

So, I'm thinking what about this BEL fellow. Everytime I look it up, I get the same etymology - Bel was a form of Ba'al. What makes them think so? How does "EL" become "AL"? Are they making the mistake of assuming that AL' was derived from the root "EL" when it was derived from "LIL"? Or, is it a mistake? How is it that LIL is the rootform of IL, but not the rootform of EL, and yet we have BEL, from BA'AL?

Where's a language expert when you need one!!!

According to the chart I linked in the OP, Enlil resolves to AL'LAH, but never resolves to EL. The reasoning given is that the root form of IL, which is in the etymological tree of AL'LAH is not EL it's LIL, as it was derived from EnLIL. Since EnLIL and therefore LIL predates the contracted form of 'IL, this appears to be the etymology of 'IL not EL.

Yet, here we have an explanation the link in the second post, that claims the dialects of two different semitic groups, south and north, had two different ways of spelling Ba'al. One spelled it BEL and the other spelled it BA'AL. This would mean that the contracted form of 'AL is the same as EL. But according to the chart in the OP, AL is resolved from LIL and therefore the contracted 'IL.

I need info on how 'AL ends up being EL. Anybody got the etymology for this please? Even across dialects, there should be some etymological trail!

I don't get how we end up with the supreme god, EL, being the same as Enlil. The etymology is different until Bel, anyway. Which is even more confusing. Enlil resolves to IL, not EL, but yet you're saying it does resolve to EL in a different dialect. How, i have no idea.

Did they know him as EnLEL? Or LEL? Before they knew him as BEL?

NEEeeeed the etymology of BEL.
-------
So i contacted dr. michael s. heiser and this is what he had to say:

Bel is Baal because (1) Baal was rendered into Greek as Bel (the "e"
being the long "e" - the "eta" in Greek - as opposed to the short "e"
the epsilon); and (2) When the Greek spelling was transliterated into
English (when various texts from the ancient world got translated), the
transliteration was "Bel" since English transliteration doesn't
distinguish between the short and long "e" of Greek. A scholar would
use diacritical marks to distinguish them, but translations of these
texts were meant for the wider English reading audience, who could care
less about such precision (and it was easier to typeset too).
===

problem solved





edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
addendum: babEL was also known as babIL, or babILU.
in other words, EL and IL are interchangeable, and what has happened is, critics over the years and even believers, have taken the generic word for god in ancient mesopotamia, and used it as evidence that the ancient hebrews were "pagans" which is so non-descript, i don't even know where to begin. in effect, EN.LIL's name became the word for god, any god, via it's various roots. in fact angEL's are named after EN.LIL.
baal is,
bel is,
elohim are,
ilu are,
il is,
the el of the ugaritic texts (which see) is,
even a cursory examination of the word baal reveals it was just the phoenician word for LORD.

this thing has been so twisted into pretzel shapes.
where the problem comes in is by the time muhammad came along and went into the kaaba, determined to correct the errors in the people's beliefs, the kaaba was full of statues of various gods with their goddess wives. and determined to get it back to EN.LIL and only EN.LIL he destroyed all the other statues.

fast forward. some scholar comes along and looks at the root, notes that baal is a weak "god" in the bible who supposedly is knocked out of the ball park when yahweh fries the priests of baal on their altar or whatever, and decides that means baal can't possibly, as a word, have anything to do with yahweh or el.

the real battle was between a god that didn't exist, and a god that did, in other words. well duh, that's cause baal (Lord) was always yahweh in the first place, and the phoenicians at the time thought it wasn't so they were asking something that didn't exist to fight something that did, or something like that. confused situation, made simple. thanks michael heiser.

the issue here is who was yahweh. was he enlil? i think he was. i think he was enlil, enki and anu, just as the sumerian-akkadian texts suggests and the hebrews had combined them into one by the time they wrote their texts. i could be wrong though, so i'm not betting the farm on it. don't want anyone freakin' out on me.

edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 
its a interesting study you are on and you do seem to take into account the issue of introducing new words phonically into new text in other languages ..

Chuck missler and his group of people do dig deep into it and it does matter how one approaches this study ..Heck just understanding the Using the term Greek can mean pagan or unbeliever which ever way one may want to express it ...Its not unlike Paul surrounded by many gods decided to preach the unknown god to them ...yea even a small detail like that can play big on what people were thinking at the time ...peace



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by undo
 
its a interesting study you are on and you do seem to take into account the issue of introducing new words phonically into new text in other languages ..

Chuck missler and his group of people do dig deep into it and it does matter how one approaches this study ..Heck just understanding the Using the term Greek can mean pagan or unbeliever which ever way one may want to express it ...Its not unlike Paul surrounded by many gods decided to preach the unknown god to them ...yea even a small detail like that can play big on what people were thinking at the time ...peace


i just thought of a funny video about baal, from the tv show, stargate sg-1. i can see how the writers of the show would come up with something like this. the back story is that baal in order to escape being detained and put on trial by sg-1 and several other other world groups, clones himself a whole bunch of times and leads sg-1 on a wild clone chase. they finally narrow it down to 2, which they have in custody and are trying to figure out which one it is.

anyway, somebody made a music video out of scenes cut from the various appearances of baal's clones.


edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Interesting thread/subject!

Will read it later when I get time.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The gobbledygook I was referring to was the Sitchin and Lloyd Pye translations.
I have read a great deal on the Sumerian Tablets but I am not aware of any authentic translation that refers to Nibiru.
I was under the impression that Nibiru was well and truly de-bunked.
Sorry if I have offended you and I look forward to more discussion.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 
Yea that is funny but it does fit ..I guess if the cant confues the issue enough use the bamboozle card cause that will at least buy some time ...peace



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
reply to post by undo
 


The gobbledygook I was referring to was the Sitchin and Lloyd Pye translations.
I have read a great deal on the Sumerian Tablets but I am not aware of any authentic translation that refers to Nibiru.
I was under the impression that Nibiru was well and truly de-bunked.
Sorry if I have offended you and I look forward to more discussion.



Oh I don't go along with Sitchin's Nibiru concept. I have no problem, however, believing there may have been some interplanetary war in which planet or moon sized ships were used, or even that there's some type of debris that orbits into this neck of the woods like velikovsky suggested, but to be honest, I found no evidence that Nibiru was a planet, in fact, it appears to be the name of Enlil's city on the Euphrates. I think sitchin argued that Nibru couldn't be Nibiru, which is kinda silly, as pointed out very clearly by heiser. The Habiru (hebrews) were Enlil's people at Nibiru or Nibru (Habru). I think they were his temple builders, his stone masons.

i am aware that it is used as an adjective by sitchin, such as the planet of the crossing, but heiser sufficiently convinced me it means the crossing place, whether that be a meridian in the sky where jupiter crosses over or the river euphrates, at nibru.
as above so below.
edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
If this being written in reference to the other thread, that needs to be resolved one way or the other, because if its removed, then its going to be made correctly. That information is critical.


Mauro Biglino: Unexpected Bible - Translating it literally (1 of 6) - Eng. subs

I have to say right now. He is a very authentic credentialed translator of the ancient Hebrew and he said, that all those who work with the old testament all have to contend with the fact they DON'T KNOW. The constenants require vowels inserted to give the meaning to the sentences and paragraphs.

But when these were written, Hebrew was not a language and was not spoken. They know this.

So, what is in the bible is a guess, the guess that the most powerful TPB with an agenda insisted it be. A fairy tale.

When you are working with wide open possibilities, some things will CROSS REFERENCE, ie Sumar to the Documents. And they DO!

They fit together cohesively in fact the scriptures flesh out the Sumar, and the Sumar flesh out the scriptures. So it stands to reason that a certain translation works, though its still uncertain.

Sitichin wasn't used. the world wide authority Giovanini Pettinato's translations were used, he is not an alternative writer, but an academic and Chairman for the European Commission for the creation of a Sumerian Dictionary.

Now, lets look at a few things.

next post.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
RUACH: MY NOTES ON THE FIRST VIDEO.



--Let's do this one, let's freewheel, let's ride the Elohims' RUACH

that is the Elohims' wind, the one that in the Bible is called, is translated as “God's spirit”

But the term RUACH doesn't mean spirit, it means wind, or anything flying in the air quickly and causing wind

The later theological elaboration, when God's figure was created, led to attaching to RUACH the meaning of spirit.

But actually, this is not there.

(he draws a sketch on a piece of paper and passes it around as to how the RUACH was represented in the Sumerian pictograms.)

Roughly 11 11 in the video.

At 11 14, it shows this craft, and wind RU and A. I suppose it could be an acorn wearing a strangely bent streamlined helm or something like that. Hmmmm......

--He says, because the word isn't Jewish, but Sumerian origin.

--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.

So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.

--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.



---As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.

If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship”

They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.


The Ancient Sumerian Pictograph that he passes around in the video is this:

edit on 21-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
There is nothing more important than waking people , especially fundamentalists, in all 3 Judiac religions up, so all this MURDER and CONTROL ENDS.

God is not a Murderer, or Smiter or a War God.

I am a Christian but knew when I read the bible what that was. Christ was murdered for standing up to them and telling them who their daddy was.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I will repeat this last part as this is CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION AND PUBLISHED BY THEM.

So the last part of my notes from Mauro Biglino's First video, subbed in English is this:

RUACH.

---As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong. If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Ironically, last few days had someone I admired online call me a heretic for not supporting revelations, which to me is a very dark side code where they hide their plans and codes and then rope humanity into pulling in. So many wars, even the concept of a holy war, its hideous and the opposite of Love and Goodness.

The old testament, all based on lies and misinterpretations for Power, and to control others and have war after war for power/profit and to entrap souls IMO.

And its all based on Sumar but changed into a religion, for the Sumar wasn't.

The irony is, Christ was murdered for being a herectic too, and so called blasphemy. Funny eh. He was just too Love and Light, new agie, and eastern/Budda type philosophy for all the zionists, a common complaint even today and one of the ways they try to police the threads. So ironic!!!!
edit on 21-1-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join