It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:23 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 7 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Gerard

Its not that we don't read what you write its that you don't. You contradict yourself.

Yes you believe Sitchin's ideas but don't believe in Sitchin.....double talk.

His (Sitchin) conclusion is that spacemen from Nibiru came and created mankind and civilization - and you appear to believe the same thing but claim you don't believe in Sitchin...Wheeeeeeeee

However as we have established that you somewhat confused about what you know and what you believe we'll quitely close the door on that.

Oh good befuddling confusion on the Shinto - so the spaceman came and with a giant spear made the islands of Japan - okay. LOL


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 9:53 am 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Mardurk says:
the Anuna are the chthonic deities of the underworld and the Anunnaki are the Anuna when they are described as being in Mesopotamia

First off the word I posted is Anunna, not Anuna, with two n's and as I posted before

Oxford Worlds Classics "Myths From Mesopotamia Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and others: A new translation by Stephanie Dalley" says that Anunna, Anunnaki, Anukki, Enunaki- Sumerian group term for the old, chthonic deities of fertility and the Underworld, headed by Anu.

In which you say "rubbish" and repeat pretty much the same definition that I already gave? ...ok, perhaps you can explain your point that is trying so hard not to be elusive?

The book was revised in 2000, unless your name ends in Dalley or Kramer, or are a known sumerologist (I'm not sure even if that is a term), I don't see how you are qualified to dispute that information. But more to the point, what does it matter, again I am not qualified to read any ancient text and the most I can do is read the translations, books such as the Oxford editions and the The Sumerians as well as Religion in Ancient Mespopotamia by Jean Bottero who says:
"Text also speak of the Anunnaku, or Anunnaki (in Sumerian, A.nun.na[k], "Offspring of the Prince," most likely , An, Enlil, or Enki, and of the Igigi/Igigu (of uncertain origin). The first of these terms appears initially to have referred to the "gods On High," "of Heaven," the most powerful, the most eminent...Later (we are not sure when or why) the situation was reversed, and the latter represented the celestial gods, whereas the Anunnaku became the gods who resided in the Netherworld."

The terms are undefinitive, this is a pointless exercise in nit picking because regardless of the exact name, the "gods" are still held responsible for creating mankind, Enki still comes to earth to set up habitation, aside from the fact that I long ago posted I am far from a scholar in these areas of specifics, what of my speculation and or personal belief does this, if at all it does, effect or for that matter show to be a pointless speculation?

You aren't demonstrating anything other then you are obviously more familar with sumerian termonlogy then the rest of us on this board...congradulations! Now that we pepped up your spirit, mine getting to a specific point or conclusion...sometime within this lifetime, unlike the Eternal lives of the gods, I am still only mortal.

Mardurk says: you would have a point
as they aren't
you don't

Ok, lets learn a bit about debates and discussions, it goes a little something like this, "I would have a point about..." and this is where you add what you think is BS and then conclude with "but you don't". You see this way I actually know what you are referring to, because in the last post to this one I still did not see what you were getting at and still don't now. Again, what are you talking about, and more specifically what relevance does it have to what I have speculated about regarding the gods of ancient cultures?

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:05 am 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Eyajwhynsos previously said: First Lunes inability to actually read what I write..

...is not an insult, but an accurate observation of the individual known as Lune. Case in point...

Lune says:Its not that we don't read what you write...

Who is we, I specifically mentioned your name Lune and you alone. Let us (me myself and I) delve a bit more down this road of inabilities to acutally read what I post.

Lune continues to say: You contradict yourself.

Really? and what proof may I ask do you have of that?

Lune would and in fact did say: Yes you believe Sitchin's ideas but don't believe in Sitchin.....double talk.

Well now that just clears it all up don't it boys..., I mean after all I did say that, only more along the lines of,


"I would say while I have considered the evidence presented by the many authors who write about ET and ET's possible intervention with humans is a potent source of information in which one should not easily and or simply disgard, I would, however, say that the evidence is not CONCLUSIVE."

do you know what that means Lune...do you, Do you really though? It means that me a person, individual, has actually looked at read, studied, what ever termonolgy fits ya and agrees with the evidence presented, stop. It means that while I do agree with the evidence, I do not support the, what was that, hmmm, you can do it say it with me now, CONCLUSION. Alright everybody good work. So much for my impending pychotic mania, I think its already here Mardurk uk after all I am still conversing with the two of you.

What was that you called it, "double talk." Now explain in detail from what I just posted how that is double talk, you seem to have forgotten to add "conclusion" in your statement, see that means alot, ask Mardurk uk, cause he knows and I am asuming he is a he, how if you add or don't add a few letters, or a word perhaps(!) how it effects the meaning of what one is trying to convey.

Lune attempts to further his speculative point by saying: His (Sitchin) conclusion is that spacemen from Nibiru came and created mankind and civilization - and you appear to believe the same thing but claim you don't believe in Sitchin...

Where do I start, where do I even begin,

1. If in the myths of ancient cultures they clearly distinguish between heaven and earth as being two separate places, that would entail them to technically be as you put it "spacemen". Because they the gods claim they come from heaven. As I already said they could of at one time possibly have been from earth, but that is irrelevant because we are going by what is actually mentioned in ancient traditions.

2. Where in my speculation did I say they came from Nibiru? This is one of the Conclusions of Sitchin that I don't agree with because I have never read of Nibiru in any of the translations that I have actually read. I took Alan F. Alfords advice after he recanted much of his ancient astronaut theory and begin all those years ago to actually read the translations themselves and found no mention of Nibiru.

3. Well not only does Sitchin believe that the gods came to created mankind and civilization, so do the sumerians themselves, and many other ancient cultures believe the same about their gods and their cultures.

So it's rather perculiar when you say :and you appear to believe the same thing but claim you don't believe in Sitchin...

...in the words of Weezy "you make it so easy when you sound so basic".

Let me for you and this I will take fault, point out a few things that I don't agree with Sitchin.

1.I do not agree that the Anunnaki orginated from Nibiru

2.I do not agree as to what or where exactly is Nibiru

3.I do not agree that they came to earth to mine for gold and or the possible use of that gold

4.I do not agree that they were just long lived and not in any sense immortal (mm hmm, thats a good one)

5.I do not agree that they the gods arrived here 432,000 years ago

6.I do not agree that homosapien sapien or what we now refer to as 'human' was created or came about only 300,000 years ago.

7.I do not believe that they set up government to help us on our way(such good samaritans they are)

Seven seems about right, there are others but for you Lune and the way in which you read these post I don't think any more even matters...

Lets see what else, oh yes...

Lune in an unsurprising display of inability says:so the spaceman came and with a giant spear made the islands of Japan - okay. LOL

in which there isn't much to say but what I already said which is:"(in other words religious practices and the acts to appear miraculous not logical and scientific)".

If one is a god and is playing a game ya want to play it to the fullest, give prominence to a land for instance to show the characters your manipulating they are the choosen one or somehow special. This aint logical or scientific, but definitely religious in nature to further serve the agenda of the gods game.

IMHO Lune, you appeared more intelligent when you popped in once in a while, appearantly responding so often has put an enormous strain on your ability to actually debate.

I know this perhaps falls on death ears but do attempt to read what I write, I do, I preview all my post several times to make sure I post what I actually mean and wish to convey, and to be able to refer back to those post when individuals such as your self think I say other wise.

Summary, I agree with some of the evidence sitchin provides, I don't believe in sitchins conclusions!

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:36 am 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Nice to see I'm not the only one on line, or researching, and here is a little bit of that from Samuel Noah Kramer the book I already quoted in a previous post The sumerians says:

"In the eyes of the Sumerian teachers and sages, the major components of the universe were heaven and earth; indeed, their term for universe was an-ki, a compound word meaning "heaven-earth." The earth was a flat disk surmounted by a vast hollow space, completely enclosed by a solid suface in the shape of a vault. Just what this heavenly solid was thought to be is still uncertain...Between heaven and earth they recognized a substance which they called lil, a word whose approximate meaning is wind, air, breath, spirit...corresponds roughly to our "atmosphere.""

This book is actually older published in 1963, however the obvious question and thing on your part to do is show this has been corrected or changed to heaven in terms of sumerian now means a mountain. That this "heavenly vault" that "encloses" earth is somehow actually attached to it thus illustrating they didn't acutally come here to earth but just move about earth.

Clearly there are gaps, but then you already knew this, however my "gaps" or absence of little bits does little to disturb my orginal speculation. As I said before regarding my paper on "The Egyptian attire..." I would not even be posting in such manner if I was not prepared.






Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 7 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron