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: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


that isn't the point. the point is, he's using actual texts in his translations. people are saying the texts are invalidated because occasionally, sitchin is wrong. no he's not a prophet, and yes, there are parts that appear to be too loosely translated to fit the texts themselves, but you see that with all manner of translations such as heiser's insistence that the anunna were just earthly royals even though the text says they were conceived in the sky. not on the earth. in the sky. and then they came down to the earth. this fits several ancient texts describing this very thing, such as the watchers of the book of enoch and the nephilim of the book of genesis. it's screaming "extra-terrestrial" invasion and the creation of hybrid offspring who became rulers.

it reminds me of the debunkers who pointed to newer hindu texts, written in the 1940s or thereabouts, as a reason to discredit texts written in 3000 BC. lol

edit on 17-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
if you want to track these guys thru our ancient history on planet earth, follow the etymology.


the etymology of EN.LIL, the sumerian/akkadian god of the wind/breath/air is:

EN means LORD
LIL means air/breath/wind
so he's Lord of the Air/Breath/Wind.

He is one of 3 gods mentioned in the sumerian trinity. The other two being the Father god, Anu, and En.lil's brother, En.ki.
En.lil was the ruler of the planet. That is, he held the title of ownership given to him by Anu.
En.ki was the creator of the human species and several other life forms. He was second in command, after En.lil. His job was to repopulate the earth with life forms following a cataclysm, described in the first two verses of the book of genesis as "tohu" (chaos)
Enki confused the languages at the Tower of Babel and warned the Noah figure about the impending flood in three sumerian-akkadian texts: The Enuma Elish, The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Atrahasis Epic.

anyway, back to En.lil

LIL
IL
EL
AL

Plural forms would be Lilim, ILU, Elohim

His name became the generic god word for mesopotamian gods, including Baal, Bel, EL (ugaritic and phonecian), and a whole host of others. Yes, EL is a phonecian and ugaritic god, as well. He appeared to like blood sacrifices of various kinds, which explains quite a few things.

the etymology of Enki

His brother and seeming counterpart, Enki, also known as Ea, became the generic god word for ancient Egypt, parts of mesopotamia and several other places on the african continent. It is expressed as it sounds, Ayah (Ea). add the semitic prefix H or Ha, and you have the original root word of Jehovah, which is Hayah. You can see it expressed also as simply AH, so suffixes with AH or IAH, are referring to Ayah, otherwise known as Hayah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Enki-Ea, or just Ea.

Sitchin was not wrong when he told the story of the rebuilding of the earth's infrastructure, the shortage of workers as a result of a worker's strike of sorts, and the decision of Ea to create replacement workers from his own DNA.

the bible elaborates on this by revealing that there were 2 creations of Adam.
the first creation of Adam were males and females who were cloned/copied from the prior Elohim which incorporates all the gods, not just one. these Adam were not homo sapians, they were elohim clones. what's elohim look like, anybody know?

the second creation of the Adam, was the first human Adam. this was apparently achieved by taking an elohim clone and splicing in mammal dna, so that the Adam could clone himself -- et.al, procreation.

sitchin had some of those parts wrong but overall, he followed the original texts pretty close.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
isolated etymology of Elohim via the Sumerian Kings List

moses was raised egyptian. he was of the hyksos shepherd kings. they ruled egypt as pharaohs for nearly 200 years. during moses' time, they had fallen out of favor with people due to high taxes and been deposed and many had become slaves, however, some had intermarried into the families of royal egyptians. that's a highly guarded secret for some strange reason.

moses, as the story goes, was adopted by pharaoh. this pharaoh is identifed in the expulsion of the hyksos (biblical exodus) as pharaoh ahmose. during this time, moses learned the egyptian story of creation via the pharaoh's scholars and the mesopotamian story of creation, via his birth mother who had gotten a job as his nanny in the pharaoh's household. these two stories are actually the same, just with cultural twists and spelling variants.

in the egyptian account, Atum had created the world. Atum=Adam.
Now i know you're probably saying WHAT? adam couldn't create diddly, he was just a clueless human in a garden somewhere. but you would be wrong, firstly because the first adam was a whole group of clones, males and females who were not humans, yet. they were elohim.

what's an elohim, you might ask?
well an elohim is clearly not a human being. lol
But let's just trace that etymology to see how that would be so.

Atum was a plural word.
So was Adam.
So was Elohim.
No i'm not saying because they were plural that means they were the same, rather, that moses was between a rock and a hard place. he had 2 accounts of the creation, both from reliable sources. which was he supposed to choose? To answer that question, you have to review the sons of Noah, who repopulated the coastal and water way regions after the black sea flood. One of Noah's sons was Ham. Ham would go on to repopulate Egypt. He took with him, the history of creation. Moses likely recognized these were the same accounts.

So backtracking to the earliest historical references of Sumer you see the first king on the sumerian king list was Alulim.
Alulim as a word, went to Egypt, became Atum, was retranslated into hebrew as Adam. The people had been named after their creators= et.al the elohim clones had been named after the Elohim. Thus the Alulim=Atum=Adam=Elohim.

moses wanted to eliminate any possible confusion, so he went with the Elohim as the name of creators and Adam as the name of the creations. best of both worlds. the old testament is mostly an egyptian book in disguise, with bits of mesopotamian history woven into it via the kamites (ham and his descendants) and moses' mother.

some think that ham's post flood journey to egypt was the first time he and his family had been there. i think this is fairly incorrect. i believe the kamites predated the black sea flood in that region, and they were simply returning to their former lands.


edit on 17-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by undo
 


sorry, i pressed enter before i had finished the op. so here's the rest of it.

For example, in his Earth Chronicles series, he suggests a planet named Nibiru is incoming and that it will eventually pass by our location on Earth, and cause various cataclysms. His last date for the arrival of Nibiru thru this neck of the woods was 300 years from now. Yet you see various people proclaiming that planet x (another name for nibiru) is likely already here or closer than we think. 300 years away vs. nearby is probably not the same thing.

Now it could be that Nibiru is closer than we thought, if for example, the writings of Sitchin were meant to circumvent any discoveries on the subject by researchers along the way. It's easy to disenfranchinse a good theory by simply offering up a fake but similar version beforehand. And, that's my contention on some of his other material.

Yet there is no ancient writings concerning some rogue planet, nor any having to do with aliens coming from that planet.

As that is the chief claim in his writings, it sort of takes the wind out of the Anunnaki sails, wouldn't you say?


undoFor example, the debunk that claims there were no sumerian texts. This is technically incorrect. There were sumerian texts but they were mostly about every day events like how many bushels of food or other resources were accumulated. The real stories don't start until Akkad, the civilization that came after the flood event known as the Black Sea Flood.

Every civilization came "after" the Black Sea flooded.

The Akkadians, it appears, were right there in Mesopotamia with the Sumerians all the time. The Sumerians themselves were just a collection of city-states (like Greece 2000 years later) constantly warring with each other (and with the Akkadians too, I presume) until the Akkadians rose to prominence under Sargon and took the place over.

Harte



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   


I have long regarded the fact that the late Mr. Sitchen maintained offices in Rockefeller Center with a great deal of suspicion, and have, I must be frank, also entertained his sudden popularity and publications has perhaps being deliberately promoted by a financial elite, a kind of disinformation operation, and as any disinformation specialist will acknowledge, to be effective, the operation must contain elements of truth.


I was a fan of the theory until it received a Prime-Time Series , if that doesn't say it all than there is no hope for us. Anything that comes from the television is to placate the masses with mind dumbing entertainment and propaganda. Anything that would educate us would separate us from dumb cattle. As it stands, they prefer us the way we are.
edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This guy, his deliberate misrepresentation and mistranslation of Sumerian text and his reliance upon a mostly ignorant public who are looking for a sort of new religion to believe sums up all that is wrong with UFOlogy in the 21st century.

If you treat UFOs as something to "believe in" aka a new religion you likely love the guy and his regurgitated ancient astronaut theories.

If you treat UFOs as a science, follow science closely and are typically open to the idea of visitation but require some hard evidence then you cringe when this guy's name is brought up by people thinking he is some well respected genius.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 






As that is the chief claim in his writings, it sort of takes the wind out of the Anunnaki sails, wouldn't you say?


no because the anunnnaki predate sitchin's nibiru theory by about 6000 years.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Rosinitiate


I have long regarded the fact that the late Mr. Sitchen maintained offices in Rockefeller Center with a great deal of suspicion, and have, I must be frank, also entertained his sudden popularity and publications has perhaps being deliberately promoted by a financial elite, a kind of disinformation operation, and as any disinformation specialist will acknowledge, to be effective, the operation must contain elements of truth.


I was a fan of the theory until it received a Prime-Time Series , if that doesn't say it all than there is no hope for us. Anything that comes from the television is to placate the masses with mind dumbing entertainment and propaganda. Anything that would educate us would separate us from dumb cattle. As it stands, they prefer us the way we are.
edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)


well i don't mind telling you, this has not been an easy study. if you think all this research is the equivalent of mind numbing dumbing down, i'd sure like to see what you think is enlightening. to study this topic alone, takes knowledge of several different historical events, archaeological finds, etymologies, and various languages. and to weed out sitchin's mistakes, takes even more intellectual labor. i really am insulted to see such hard, intellectual endeavor labelled mind dumbing.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
there are 2 cataclysms in the noah story. 1 is a flood isolated to the water ways of the near, far and middle east. the other, is a global flood and cataclysm referring back to the events that lead to the ice age, and the subsequent re-terraforming of the planet, including the rebuilding of the mines, flocks, fields and dam systems. noah's flood is not an one shot deal. the creation verses are a re-creation not a first creation. they are RE-plenishing the earth. re-filling the earth. not filling it for the first time. events prior to the ice age, have no direct bearing on the advent of homo sapiens, so the information regarding that time frame, is sparse in ancient texts. it was a different dispensation.

notice it says noah took 32 animals on the ark, not all the animals. the idea of taking a vast menagerie of critters, on a global scale, and intelligent sapients/life forms on a rescue ship, hearkens back to events that occured that lead to the opening verses of genesis. and many of these were not taken bodily, but rather in the form of a dna bank, so that it could be re-created.

the only part of the creation chapters in genesis, which describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth, is verse 1. everything after that, is isolated to this dispensation and disregards most of the prior dispensation till noah's flood story, which briefly and intermittently skims the ice age cataclysm data and then combines it with a more gentle flood event.


edit on 18-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

JadeStar
This guy, his deliberate misrepresentation and mistranslation of Sumerian text and his reliance upon a mostly ignorant public who are looking for a sort of new religion to believe sums up all that is wrong with UFOlogy in the 21st century.





how can it be new when the information is identical?
same stories. noah's flood? see epic of gilgamesh tablet 11 and the atrahasis epic.
nimrod and the tower of babel? see enmerkar and the lord of arrata and the namshub of enki.
creation of humans, see various sumerian-akkadian texts.

here let me help ya

epic of gilgamesh: tablet XI
www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

atrahasis epic
www.jcu.edu...

enmerkar and the lord of arrata
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...



edit on 18-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I would like to address your idea of re-fill or replenish. I questioned this idea before on another thread but never got a response so I am going to assume the basis of your ideas here are the same as before.
"Gen 1 if you look at the meaning of the word, which is male', you will find that it does not mean replenish it means to fill. The same word is used in Gen 1:22 in exactly the same context as 28 and is translated as fill. Unless I'm mistaken the idea of (re) comes into play in the vulgate but does not appear in earlier texts. I find it odd to translate a word used in the same tense and context within 6 verses to imply something other than it's primary definition unless there are older scripts to support that particular use of the word which to my knowledge(as limited as I freely admit it is) there is none. The english meaning to fill again came into play in the 16th century which distorts the original hebrew meaning sadly.

So we fast forward a bit to the story of noah and again we run into male' being translated as replenish. Since the text states the world has been wiped out that translation makes sense but again it's wrong. God instructed them to fill the earth."
If the above is true then concerning biblical texts you run into issue using it as support for your presented information. If you have some to share that I could read about to support your stance here I would love to read it.



notice it says noah took 32 animals on the ark

I would like to know where this information came from as I am not aware of it. Thanks for your time.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

undo

Rosinitiate


I have long regarded the fact that the late Mr. Sitchen maintained offices in Rockefeller Center with a great deal of suspicion, and have, I must be frank, also entertained his sudden popularity and publications has perhaps being deliberately promoted by a financial elite, a kind of disinformation operation, and as any disinformation specialist will acknowledge, to be effective, the operation must contain elements of truth.


I was a fan of the theory until it received a Prime-Time Series , if that doesn't say it all than there is no hope for us. Anything that comes from the television is to placate the masses with mind dumbing entertainment and propaganda. Anything that would educate us would separate us from dumb cattle. As it stands, they prefer us the way we are.
edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)


well i don't mind telling you, this has not been an easy study. if you think all this research is the equivalent of mind numbing dumbing down, i'd sure like to see what you think is enlightening. to study this topic alone, takes knowledge of several different historical events, archaeological finds, etymologies, and various languages. and to weed out sitchin's mistakes, takes even more intellectual labor. i really am insulted to see such hard, intellectual endeavor labelled mind dumbing.


All disinformation seems to share a similar trait....usually 90% is true, 5% lies! and 5% misdirection. Personally, I feel there is an air of truth. What I don't agree with, is that some aliens from wherever did whatever to us. I think there is much that needs discovering regarding our existence predeluvian and I also would like to know more about the "Gods" of the time who used to hobnob with us back than.

I think perhaps as the global population began to understand a fundamental truth that things are not as we are told regarding our pre-flood existence, that "they" felt the need to control this information to funnel us back into a collective doldrum society. Not unlike the movie matrix....those who don't fit in the program are released to Zion so they don't corrupt the program. Sadly, Zion itself is equally an artificial construct, only more in line with the flushee's thought of truth or reality. Which is why the architect allowed The Neo's of the past to rebuild Zion each time. It's just another part of the whole. We are still being controlled.
edit on 18-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by drivers1492
 


in the opening verses it says the earth was tohu. later it says the earth was not created tohu. notice also that the water is covering the land, which draws back to reveal dry land that was already there. this means something happened to make it tohu, between verse 1 and 2. since we have plenty of evidence that the ice age did indeed occur, perhaps we can extrapolate that something really big happened that resulted in the event. for example, what type of being was created before the Adam (human and not human)? answer: angels, sons of god or sons of gods. where's their residence *points up* --- up there somewhere. how do they get to the earth? ask enoch. 200 watchers landed on the earth, descended, to the earth at one of the mounts. now typically when something descends from the sky, it means it came down to the earth from the sky.

notice these references would jive incredibly well with the war in heaven. there was an intergalactic or intersolar system battle, the earth was devastated, this resulted in the ice age which wiped out the reptiles. now i want you to think about that.

people just have to ascertain when the text means "heaven" as an other dimensional abode, and "heaven" or "heavens" as in the sky. where's the line of demarcation? since there doesn't appear to be one, we can only assume the task is laid upon us to decipher which is which.

edit on 18-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


S&F for your diligent labor and your ability to question ancient artifacts
in search of higher answers


I am in agreement with your reflection of Sitchin's work.
He may have intentionally (or not) mistranslated Sumerian cunio-form tablets as
'translating' is a tedious task at best and one can at times become 'strayed' in their
readings with much back tracking to correct the quest lineage.

Seems Sitchin's work was never questioned until he made the Nibiru claim -
in which if memory serves correctly, he surmised a possible 'crossing' return
around 2,273...So no Nibiru fear for another 260 years and I promise if it does
show up - no one reading this will feel a thing!


Sitchin has been discredited many times by his colleagues and armchair critics yet the
Sumerian 'seals' show an intelligence of an ancient race we did not have or understand
until the last 100 years. (think astronomy)

We have stories of Lemuria, Atlantis and the Tower of Babel which lend credence to Sitchin's theory.
They also tell of an intelligent civilization and it's destruction through cataclysm with much
information coming from the bible.
It helps to know the original bible was basically the Genesis (Gene-assisted) story and
the book of Revelation (end times).
These two books tell the story of a civilizations rise from 'birth to demise' and when you add in
the missing book of Enoch.. a true story unfolds.
The bible is an astrological equation, as is the book of Enoch ( Enoch is NOT about UFO's)
and when you equate this to the ancient ruins strewn across earth that also have astological
intelligence we have yet to recreate in such monoliths such as Giza, Maccu Pichu, Teotihuacan,
the pyra-temple of Kukulkahn etc...etc.. a relic from humanity's past recreates itself.

When one does serious research with said monuments, a very curious language arises,
a language I believe is mentioned as the language spoken by all humanty as mentioned
by ancient man and verified by our present day historians and anthroplogist's.
That language is 'mathematics'..equated in ALL ancient monuments, a language all
races need understand to become intelligent and self sufficient.

So was Sitchin correct..?
The bible tells of TWO global catastrophe's...the story of Noah, a colossal flood
and the story of Lot which interprets as asteroid, comet, meteor strikes
combined with solar flares.

What about the story of 'Tiamat'.. ..is it true..?
Basically we have a story of a rogue planet entering our galaxy intersecting
with another planet destroying it.
We have scars on Mars, a asteroid belt beyond Mars but between our outer
planets (where a planet SHOULD BE) and a race of people on Earth who have
essentially lost their collective memory.

If Nibiru is a 'true' story and most of what Sitchin said is right, then the answer sums
as Nibiru collided with Tiamat and both were destroyed.
The collision caused our inner asteroid belt destroying Mars and sending a wave of
epic sound vibration coupled with asteroid/comet pelting causing Earth's polar tilt
resulting in the many oral myths of colossal flooding, earthquakes, volcanism and
total destruction realized by understanding Puma Punku and Tiwanku.

The planet Nibiru was destroyed and now what we see every 3600 years is a
crossing of debris following the original planets trajectory.

Can I prove this..?
Not without explaining all the monuments and going through a lengthy
process of dispelling the bible and Enoch showing the mathematical and
astrological equations hidden in the stories.

My personal belief is the bible reflects some of Sitchin's findings.
Genesis and Revelation, the original bible, is a story of 'prior-man's' existence from
beginning to fall - and a vague description of what present day humanity will experience in our future.

In summary, I for one thank you 'undo' for your quest in higher understanding in regards
to unraveling the lost memory of humanity.


Be well.
edit on 18-1-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




in the opening verses it says the earth was tohu. later it says the earth was not created tohu

I'm not familiar with the later part you are referring to, could you tell me where that is please.

I'm in no way trying to be combative with you undo but I did ask some fairly direct questions in my early response neither of which seem to have anything to do with your response back unless I am misunderstanding. If you could address those or clarify how your response has relevance to them I would appreciate it. It would make it much easier to move forward in the discussion. thanks



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

drivers1492
reply to post by undo
 




in the opening verses it says the earth was tohu. later it says the earth was not created tohu

I'm not familiar with the later part you are referring to, could you tell me where that is please.

I'm in no way trying to be combative with you undo but I did ask some fairly direct questions in my early response neither of which seem to have anything to do with your response back unless I am misunderstanding. If you could address those or clarify how your response has relevance to them I would appreciate it. It would make it much easier to move forward in the discussion. thanks


isaiah 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

vain in the verse is tohuw. so it would say, it was not created by god to be tohu. what made it empty and without form or tohu? the war in heaven. the earth became a wasteland, not was a wasteland but BECAME a wasteland.

read the verse on this page, then click the word vain in verse 18 and it will tell you the original hebrew.
www.htmlbible.com...

people who say this particular approach is lacking solid biblical reference apparently forgot about the fall of the 1/3rd. unless it can be proven otherwise, i'm theorizing this planet was the domain of the angels, who lived on it, just as we do. and not just a random angelic group but the seraphim. why them? cause seraphim is the plural of seraph and this is what a seraph is:

Result of search for "seraph":

8314 saraph saw-rawf' from 8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.
www.eliyah.com...

the seraph attacked the israelites in the desert. they were "serpents"
what pray tell is a serpent besides a snake? was eve really talking to a talking snake? if so, how can a snake have his legs removed ? wouldn't he need legs in order to have them removed? what was he doing on the earth as if it was his place too?

yeah, that's what i said.


edit on 18-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

tothetenthpower
What I find compelling is people who cling to these theories Sitchin had without anything more than an education gleamed from a computer monitor. Real scientists have studied these things, and they've discredited him because his translations and his science were bad.

Happens all the time. Just because we would want to believe something is true, doesn't make it so.

Pointing out flawed research and mistranslations as proof that he was correct, because he 'intentionally' did that to mislead researchers is just silly.

~Tenth



What I find compelling is people who cast unwarranted judgement upon others regarding either their education level or the personal research that they have done.

PHD does not mean genius. It simply means you sat and studied in a group and passed tests. I work with folks who have Masters Degrees...side by side...and I am a dropout. I do the same damned thing they do. And, I routinely get approached to dumb down my work for fear that others (read as, the folks with "Masters Degrees") might have difficulty in maintaining my creations, because the approach I took in making them was too "advanced" or too "difficult" for the person coming behind me to understand....not because it was incorrect, or somehow wrong.

What I also find compelling, is that someone vetted as a "Super Moderator" by this board is the one casting such aspersions.....


Let's just chill and TRY to get the f#$k along, shall we? This is, after all, a place for DISCUSSION. If you so desperately disagree, walk away. Nobody needs to hear how intellectually superior you are. Or think you are.
edit on 18-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: Becaue I'm not done ranting against egotistical fatheads.....



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
this is my latest voyage into old etymologies.

Ha or H is a semitic prefix of many nouns.

what if Ham, et. al, Khem/Kam, was originally Ha-adam, or Hadam. (khem is the land of egypt, where ham settled or rather, re-settled)
This would explain why Moses told the story of the creation of Ha-adam because Ham could've potentially re-iterated the story with himself as the created. The Ha-atum created the ha-atum. these old verses don't have case sensitivty, so you have to gingerly pick thru them to see who is what. This fits with my earlier theory that the Adam were named after their creators, and Moses decided to use the sumerian Alulim as the creators, which would later be called the Elohim and differentiate the created by calling them by their egyptian name -- Atum/Adam which was really the name of Ha-adam, or something like that.

if that werent confusing enough, add to this that they were also called the Anunnaki.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


So taking the 2 references of tohuw from gen 1 and isa 45, I would find a more fluid understanding of the two a little different. The isa 45 reference would simply mean he didn't create it to be tohuw, just as I wouldn't create bread dough just to remain dough I started with it and had intent for it to be baked and have have a finished product.(he formed it to be inhabited)



people who say this particular approach is lacking solid biblical reference apparently forgot about the fall of the 1/3rd

I would think that's because there isn't any direct biblical reference to 1/3 falling. The only place that one can insinuate that is from revelation and even then it's not concrete.

Interesting thread though. I find Sitchin lacking but it was a cool story. It would have been so much better had the texts actually supported his "translation". That would have been some groovy studying.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join