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.

 

Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

page: 18
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Like you said about something else, he came later.

Harte


oh? got evidence of that??? i'd like to read it, although i'm still reading the metamorphosis of enlil




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
p.s. i need a translation for the german quotes in the paper. babelfish use to translate entire links but they have stopped doing that. the author builds his case in english and gives the punch line in german, so i'm missing half of his data.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
oh i see what he's doing. he's quoting matthews to make en.ki (d) be an earlier name for nibru. i don't think so. the e.nun was eridu, the e.abzu. the nun is the abyss, the abzu. and the e.nun is the house of the abzu/abyss/nun. like the primeval nun mentioned in egyptian texts, as the creative force from which arose the sacred mound of creation (the e.abzu rising from the abzu/abyss/nun). enlil was not a creative force, he was an authoritarian force. my guess is matthews picked up abzu references in enlil's e.kur data, and assumed this was evidence that en.ki was a deified building. there is precedence for the deification of buildings, but no, enki was not a deified building.

i think it's safer to say that the egyptian RA was a deification of Enki-Ea's E.NUN (the E.ABZU). I developed this theory after reading the ancient egyptian text, "The Legend of the Destruction of Mankind" in which Ra is described as having bones like silver (the e.abzu was silver on the inside), skin like gold (the e.abzu was gold on the outside), with hair like lapis lazuli (the e.abzu was decorated with lapis lazuli). i don't recall which sumerian-akkadian text i got the description of the e.abzu from. i'll check and post it here later.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
holy toledo, they are trying awfully hard in this paper to make enki into enlil (it appears they want to re-translate the story into a monotheistic story). these are not the same entities. and they are only getting away with that interpretation because they haven't addressed all the ways in which words relating to earth and the abzu, are depicted in the texts. (not to mention how LIL became a generic god word, that would end up being applied in one fashion or another, to all mesopotamian gods, later (example: elohim (plural word meaning "gods")).
edit on 23-7-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
whew, okay the author of the paper is at least discussing alternative translations, wherein the word "ki" is being used generically to refer to land, like plots of land/earth. so "ki Enlil" is land belonging to the temple of Enlil. i think what has happened there is, the words relating to plots of land in a civilization, that originated from En.ki's division of lands based on their life-giving properties, such as vegetable and herb crops, herds of livestock or schools of fish, were called a ki (a plot). i use to know how much square footage was in an sumerian land plot, but i've since forgotten and it might take awhile to find it again.

also of note here is that life giving properties (corn crops, sheep herds, etc) may have a different name than property designated for housing or industry, such as gold mining. so ki, may be the name specifically for plots of land used in sustaining life, such as food and water. theoretically, of course. and that would mean that ki Enlil is life sustaining lands belonging to the E.KUR at Nibru /Nibbur /Nippur.
edit on 23-7-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
holy toledo, they are trying awfully hard in this paper to make enki into enlil (it appears they want to re-translate the story into a monotheistic story). these are not the same entities. and they are only getting away with that interpretation because they haven't addressed all the ways in which words relating to earth and the abzu, are depicted in the texts. (not to mention how LIL became a generic god word, that would end up being applied in one fashion or another, to all mesopotamian gods, later (example: elohim (plural word meaning "gods")).

I think that the paper primarily illustrates the many different versions the Mesopotamian mythology likely went through andthe fact that beliefs differed (sometimes greatly) from city to city, and the many versions it went through in modern times, changing with each discovery.

Obviously, one has to go mainly on speculation regarding the preliterate period. Even after writing was used, we don't have written mythological materials to reference until quite a bit later, just mostly accounting information and various types of receipts. The oldest stuff we have to go by is only iconography, which we have to interpret for ourselves.

The cylinder seal Sitchin carries on about is actually either a thank-you sort of note or a receipt for work done from a brick mason, for example.

Harte



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Scholars also have to contend with older tales that are only preserved by much later cultures. Many Sumerian tales only exist on cuneiform tablets written by Assyrians and Babylonians, some as copies nearly 2,000 years after the tales first emerged. Linguistics can determine a tales earlier origin, even so the versions of Sumerian tales we know of have to be filtered by our knowledge of the antecedent cultures and languages.

Look at the versions of creation myths in Mesopotamia; the earliest is the Eridu Genesis, which has a simple flood tale involving a Ziudsura - however we only have a 16th C. BC version written by Babylonians. Then later Sumerian versions in the Epic of Gilgamesh, with a tweaked flood tale involving Utnapishtim, also written by Babylonians circa 18th C. BC, in several versions and grouped together as a collection. The tale in its entirety has to patched together from these versions. The Akkadians had their versions, with a flood hero named Atra-Hasis. Start mingling in the Ashur Version of the 'Seven Tablets of Creation,' the Semitic versions that ancient Hebrews wove into the Bible, and all the similar creation tales adopted throughout the ancient Near East and what you get is a lot of tales, and a lot of versions, tales that morphed and evolved and spread through diffusion to other cultures, and many time those tales, gods, and heroes were only partially adopted or woven into their native tales.

You can't possibly take these tales as verbatim histories, with gods as real beings. Trying to take these tales and turn them into a specific narrative of events, ala Sitchin, is folly.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

In reading ancient myth I also like to ask myself - who wrote it down or who was there to note this all down.....if it was real.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

When it comes to Sitchin's claims, asking "who was there to note this all down" will have Sitchin adherents chasing their tails.

Sitchin goes from this:



To this:



Using nothing more than the imagery of a scant cylinder seal or two, and Enuma Elis (the part of the tale with Tiamat being slain)? He just added 4.5 billion years of 'backstory' to their tales. Who does Sitchin, or his adherents, imagine was present to witness all this and write it down? Even his fabled Anunnaki had yet to come into existence.
edit on 24-7-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

This is why you fail to understand that Sitchin was right. You keep wanting logical answers. To know the truth, you have to snort a line of Koolaid and then free fall into a stupid mess of fiction.

If you can't do that...you will never know the truth.

MM



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
@Undo
I always thought Enil was associated with Jehovah but read earlier in the thread you posted
The etymology of Enki is Jehovah?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: teraform

No, Jehovah is Latin, and based on the Hebrew YHWH, Yahweh. Hebrew as a language is based on Eastern Semitic, possibly Eblaite, and was derived long after the Sumerian language existed. Trying to equate Jehovah = Enki is grossly misleading.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: teraform
@Undo
I always thought Enil was associated with Jehovah but read earlier in the thread you posted
The etymology of Enki is Jehovah?


correct.

Ea = Iah. NehemIAH, JeremIAH, etc. Also in Pharaoh Ahmose's name: Born of Iah. Pronounced Ayah. add semitic prefix H-ayah. Hayah is the root form of jehovah, which is also yahweh. I am that I am is Hayah Asher Hayah.

Ea=Iah=Ayah=Yah=HaYAH=YAHweh=Jehovah. all the same banana.


edit on 24-7-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

i don't agree with the cylinder seal translation sitchin provided, so you're preaching to the choir on that.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
@Undo this from page 4 of the thread,this is were Iam confussed
yet more evidence that En.lil, who is occasionally called Jehovah in the old testament, and who is later called Allah by muslims,
and who the vatican also surreptiously (by deceit) worship, the god of Babylon. not the god of gods, but the owner of planet
Earth, prince of the Air.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: teraform
@Undo this from page 4 of the thread,this is were Iam confussed
yet more evidence that En.lil, who is occasionally called Jehovah in the old testament, and who is later called Allah by muslims,
and who the vatican also surreptiously (by deceit) worship, the god of Babylon. not the god of gods, but the owner of planet
Earth, prince of the Air.


Yeah, it's divided into two layers. One is Enki-Ea who created us, gave us procreation, told us we could eat from any trees, to go forth, be fruitful and multiply, saved the noah figure and confused the languages at babel to stop enlil's world order (you can see this in Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata, which is the story of nimrod and the tower of babel, from a late akkadian author). And the other is Enlil, who condemned us repeatedly, including demanding our dna be nerfed after learning we had "knowing" (procreation). The Atrahasis Epic helps to bring this into clearer view. Both were considered god in the bible, but one is the god who owns the planet, like a piece of property, and the other is the god who created us, and so on.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

i don't agree with the cylinder seal translation sitchin provided, so you're preaching to the choir on that.

Just an example of the sorts of evidence we find that I mentioned.

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

that is the point of this thread:

don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

that is the point of this thread:

don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


I'm more interested in flushing the crap with the toilet water.

And there is a LOT of crap in here.

MM



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: teraform
@Undo
I always thought Enil was associated with Jehovah but read earlier in the thread you posted
The etymology of Enki is Jehovah?


correct.

Ea = Iah. NehemIAH, JeremIAH, etc. Also in Pharaoh Ahmose's name: Born of Iah. Pronounced Ayah. add semitic prefix H-ayah. Hayah is the root form of jehovah, which is also yahweh. I am that I am is Hayah Asher Hayah.

Ea=Iah=Ayah=Yah=HaYAH=YAHweh=Jehovah. all the same banana.



Do you find it odd that there is no evidence that Enki was Jehovah? Not a single credible source comes to your conclusion. I think that is very telling. In fact, i notice most of your information is baseless and only present in the works of a few con-men who twisted words and history to sell books that were intentionally dishonest fabrications to make money off gullible people.

No...Enki was not Jehovah. We have 5 generations of Gods that depict Enki in detail. None on the record come to the conclusion you are making.

Why?

MM



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join