These are not the anunnaki you're looking for.

I believe that all mythological and religious literature should be treated as witness testimony - witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable and should only be considered as a single perspective. Language is far too malleable for anyone to make claims of definitive understanding.

There were warrior angels assigned to cleanse the Earth of a sort of 'demonic infection'. Those angels fell, but in some way are behind the warrior religion of Islam, and survive through other secret societies and are still committed to eradicating the element within society that has brought down every civilisation in history. I would imagine this is what Hitler believed he was fighting.

We are essentially locked in a war between fallen angels and demons and most people on this planet - unbeknownst to them - fight for the agenda of their creators. Jesus came straight from the Original and Perfect and spoke to a small group hence: 'Blessed are the solitary and the elect; it is from the Father from which they came and to the Father they shall return'.

Yahweh / Osiris / Jahbulon has his own agenda - he is Loki, playing many different sides and like many other 'gods', he created his own people (a probably derivative version is accounted for in the Biblical Genesis).

Something akin to the Angel of death (which may well be the Christ as well) will have the last say and put and end to this squabble. This 'Son of God' will be opposed by nearly all other powers. He will have to utilise the darkness in order to carry out his objectives, as the Father is only light, whereas matter is not only darkness and light but is the direct result of the battle between dark and light. He that is in possession of a full understanding of the light will also understand the inert, cold and empty darkness and will be immune to the effect that this emptiness usually has on people.

There is more likely to be new world chaos than a 'New world order' and trying to get definitive answers to all the worlds goings-on would be impossible. The rulers are driven by unholy and often purely self-serving agendas; there are no friendships - friendship is founded on Love - there are only mutually beneficial associations. They are - or will be - divided against themselves; they have irresolvable internal conflicts and they can only lose.

Oh hang on, the Anunnaki - well this struggle has off-Earth elements to it as well, I'd wager the satellites of the gas giants are riddled with life; the Anunnaki are something to do with that.

Originally posted by UNIT76
reply to post by MysterX

 

look, this is only true if you believe in nothing, if there are no absolutes, no morals, no values, no meaning and purpose.. no "God"

Rubbish. I'm sorry, but it is.

You imagine a Human being cannot have values, morals, meaning and purpose in life because of a lack of structured religious belief system?

That's a totally wrong, totally biased and very simplistic and childish point of view with no basis in reality.

I consider myself to be agnostic, i do not 'believe in nothing' as that would make me an existential nihilist.

As an agnostic, it's simply a matter of having honesty and common sense...iow, the personal admission that there is not enough proof or even evidence to make an informed and certain choice regarding our origins and spiritual existence.

I have faith, but faith in the intrinsic goodness of the majority of my fellow Human beings, and faith that there is FAR more to discover about ourselves, our origins and the nature of the physical and metaphysical Universe (or even multiverse(s)) than we can fathom with our current levels of knowledge and experience.

I refuse to limit my scope to such simple concepts as 'God' made everything and that's the end of the matter! If our experience so far has taught us anything at all...it's that most things, especially things of an existential nature are always MUCH more complicated than we ever imagine.

you're saying side A (christians) debunk side B (sitchin) and on it goes ad infinitum.. (so there's no truth.. nothing means anything, both camps just life... "evolution" .."do as thou will" and all that, right?)

No, not right. Wrong in fact. I'm saying that ANY religion or people who follow a particular doctrine, will attempt to challenge and debunk anything that does not fall within the teachings of their particular doctrine, or challenges or threatens to impinge on their narrow views

The names given in the OP (Jonathan Gray for example) happen to be Christian and while not strictly speaking classed as 'militant Christians' (In my view) they are active in promoting their faith by presenting findings and theories widely online that they see as reinforcing Christianity or otherwise offer evidences in order to support it.

The same is true of ANY opposing or competing religious group...it always HAS been the case throughout Human history..surely you know this is a basic truth of religious differences? This isn't by any stretch a new or radical concept.

The same happens in ANY other walk of life where strong opposing views and beliefs meet..politics is another example, even supporting a football team over another, rival team produces the same combative effect.

Side 'A' and side 'B' is only a fraction of the story, sides C, D, E, F, G and so on are in there and sticking the metaphorical and sometimes actual boot in too!

..what if side A was truth to begin with?
..what if side B was essentially part of the parallel propaganda story?

..ask yourself, why do those in side B camp >constantly< try to undermine jesus and christianity?
even if you want to think the bible is lies.. you can *understand* what it stands for (if you study it)

ask yourself, why "the system" (those of the side B camp) constantly attack what those christian values stand for?

I'd imagine those people in camp 'B' (and C, D, E etc. etc.) are not necassarily or specifically attempting to 'undermine Jesus', since most of those people don't actually believe he is or was real / and / or there is truth in an alternative area of study...some choose science to discover the answers and history without what they see as an emotional crutch.

You cannot undermine Jesus, if you don't believe he/she/it ever existed in the first place, although you can attempt to undermine the facets of the religion built up around the idea of a bloke called Jesus...if there is scope to do so, or IOW, if the religion is so percieved to be so full of holes as to be an easy target for rational thinkers.

That's a problem for those espousing the religion, not those who question the existence of the holes BTW.

As for the bible being lies, i don't believe it is, nor is the quran, the Torah, the Vedas, the sutras etc. etc. etc. I do however believe, without a shadow of a doubt that much of what is contained in all of those books is missunderstandings, exaggerations, superstitious bias and the rest is a kind instruction manual on how to live a good life, and how to extinquish the lives of those the book claims is not good (yeah, hypocrisy is rife in all of them)

If all of those books were written for the first time right now, today...how do you imagine they would differ from those written thousands of years ago?

They would be absolutely unrecognisable to their ancient namesakes, because we KNOW MORE now

reply to post by MysterX

.

The names given in the OP (Jonathan Gray for example) happen to be Christian and while not strictly speaking classed as 'militant Christians' (In my view) they are active in promoting their faith by presenting findings and theories widely online that they see as reinforcing Christianity or otherwise offer evidences in order to support it.

It was Murgatroid who mentioned Gray. I am very selective when using sources and Gray would not be one of them. I agree that there are many authors trying to use particular evidence to support their religion despite the contrary facts. Too much bias.

The only way we would know for sure is to build a time machine........

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
There is no advanced ancient technology that has ever been discovered. There are no facts that speak for themselves. Every bit of ancient astronaut theory is a lie, and has been proven to be so many times.

Nothing from ancient aliens is proven fact but 'has been proven lie many times' - what is proven lie? Most of the things remain mystery, they are neither verified, nor dismissed. Many of the ancient things - Nazca lines, some monuments, stories - one should listen to some kinds of people like American natives and some others. These are more than just superstitious tribes that firstly have a lot more dignity and earn nothing from disinformation or telling stories to be compared with Greer and such (or speaking of ancient aliens - their proponents)

People who are spiritually much richer than the modern society are a lot more credible... just so you know. Lots of cases these have not been told to speak lies, this is not your daily Greer.

Endless clues suggest such a possibility, and yet you say all has been proven a lie? Wow.. Thee only thing is Ancient Aliens proponents are doing it wrong, since they claim everything comes from aliens.

These are not the anunnaki you're looking for...

personally, i am not looking for any anunnaki, but for those that are, here is a link worth checking out...
www.zeitlin.net...

Enki is sometimes named MUŠDA in Sumerian. This epithet defines him as being the "grand architect" or even the "mason" of the world, but the decomposition of this term into MUŠ-DA gives us "powerful reptile". This crafty reptile, responsible for the cloning of humanity and the codification of the languages of Earth, is no other than the biblical serpent, he who foiled the plan of Yahvé in Eden, at a time when under the orders of this same Yahvé.

As I demonstrate in my two first works, the Old Testament is a mediocre counterfeit that outragously uses the much more ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions....

Did nibiru kill us yet?

Its from mythology

Just because people today call it mythology does not prove it's just mythology.

Originally posted by tinhattribunal

These are not the anunnaki you're looking for...

personally, i am not looking for any anunnaki, but for those that are, here is a link worth checking out...
www.zeitlin.net...

Enki is sometimes named MUŠDA in Sumerian. This epithet defines him as being the "grand architect" or even the "mason" of the world, but the decomposition of this term into MUŠ-DA gives us "powerful reptile". This crafty reptile, responsible for the cloning of humanity and the codification of the languages of Earth, is no other than the biblical serpent, he who foiled the plan of Yahvé in Eden, at a time when under the orders of this same Yahvé.

As I demonstrate in my two first works, the Old Testament is a mediocre counterfeit that outragously uses the much more ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions....

I'm quite certain that MUŠ-DA or MUŠDA are incorrect.
I checked using The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature but it could not find a match for either.

I found a reference to a Nu Mus Da as a Sumerian god, the patron of the lost city of Kazallu, mentioned in texts and Musdamma as a minor dingir of buildings appointed by ENKI. I could not find the decomposition MUŠ-DA anywhere in reference to "powerful reptile", the sumerian word for 'great serpent' is AZAG and for reptile it is itzem.

Again it must be noted that serpents involved in cloning are just imaginative theories with no real data to back up such claims. They are just fanciful interpretations.

here's a real doozy: i think jesus was enki redux.

reply to post by Tindalos2013


the electronic text corpus of sumerian literature and the penn state sumerian dictionary are both awesome sumerian resources, unfortunately, the dictionary is missing several words and the corpus is missing several texts.

these are in the penn state sumerian dictionary on a search for "great serpent" but as you'll notice, they are both babylonian words

mušgal [SERPENT] (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. muš-gal "type of serpent" Akk. mušgallu

ušumgal [DRAGON] (65x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Lagash II, Old Babylonian, 1st millennium) wr. ušumgal; u3-šu-gal "great dragon, snake" Akk. ušumgallu
----------

however, i would like to direct your attention to the hebrew translation of the word "seraph" which is singular for seraphim. seraphim are angels. it's the plural form for seraph. and what is a seraph?

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

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.

-------------

so according to this, jehovah has fiery coppery colored serpents (dragons) around his throne. say what? clearly we are missing some information from the texts. our predecessors on this planet, were not homo sapiens (i mean before the advent of adam and eve), they were reptilian and amphibious. it makes sense. for millions of years, this planet was the abode of reptiles and amphibians. god made other creations before humans, such as the angels (of which seraphim is a class of angels) and they grew so powerful technologically, they had a war in the heavens (which means in the sky, up in the starry firmament).

the old books of the ancient cultures scream about ancient high technology.

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by intrptr

 

So they cant be proven true OR false, correct?

Thats the beauty of myths and legends. I was addressing the OP:

Thusly his entire theory is proven to be wrong and no such unearthly beings exist. Most of his writings can be considered as fantasy.

The OP is correct in that Sitchin's interpretation of the word "anunnaki" is proven wrong.

However, the OP's "translation" is just as wrong, though likely not purposefully wrong with an eye toward book sales, which is why Sitchin came up with his wrong interpretation.

The anunna gods (Sumerian term) were a second generation of lesser gods. They toiled to create the world we see. They got fed up with all the work. They revolted. A god was slain, his blood mixed with clay, and humans were created from this to take over the work.

Nothing whatsoever about gold, BTW.

"Anunna" and "Anunnaki" both translate as "children of Anu." The "ki" in anunnaki refers to the land between the rivers (Mesopotamia.) That version could be translated as the "children of Anu in Mesopotamia," then.

Anunnaki is the Akkadian/Babylonian term for the Anunna.

Some experts translate it merely as "of princely blood," with the "princely" part referring to their royal father (Anu - king of the gods.)

But, as the OP stated quite clearly, they are "not the anunnaki you're looking for."

A reasonable discussion of this group of gods can be found here.

If you read there, you'll see that what the term actually means depends heavily on the time period you are looking at.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Tanks for the link.

Some experts translate it merely as "of princely blood," with the "princely" part referring to their royal father (Anu - king of the gods.)

Seems to me a lot of ancient "Royal" Princes and Kings referred to themselves as Gods. Is it that base of a deception that even we think they were (gods) too? It wouldn't have anything to do with egotistical elite family groups thinking they were better than everyone else? That makes then less than human in my realm.