It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 6 of 7 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Speculation on something that isn't true is fantasy. Sitchin fits that bill very well. After 35 years nothing has come forward to show that anything he stated is true, while there is an overwhelming body of knowledge that rejects his ideas.

Speculation on dark energy is of course welcome, it is neither completely rejected nor accepted.

Sitchinism has been rejected, or more correctelu never accepted as it lacked evidence and failed to explain why all the contra evidence should be discarded.

Sitchin 'theory' is nonsense. Care to see two examples of what nonsense is? Go look at my thread on errors in Sitchin - two prime ones there.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:14 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Lune says:Speculation on something that isn't true is fantasy

So you are saying that the ufo phenomenon has no substance what so ever? I don't know if you actually read what I just posted or just saw another opportunity to rant about your obvious dislike of sitchin and those of his proponents, but I did mentioned that I don't quite find his work and that of many other alternative writers on the ufo phenonmenon conclusive.

Lune says:Speculation on dark energy is of course welcome, it is neither completely rejected nor accepted.

Lets see, the ufo phenonmenon as well as Sitchins work is neither completely rejected nor accepted. What you are dealing in is the obvious prejudice that most mainstream proponents including yourself have against anyone who isn't mainstream or believes and or thinks along such lines. Just as a case can be made against say Sitchins work "blowing it to shreds", the same can be done with the concept of dark energy, having no accurate or for that matter concrete description of its very nature other then what it causes the cosmos to do. Hmm, I think that would be considered a work of fantasy thinking-mind job, if you will.

Lune says:Sitchinism has been rejected, or more correctelu never accepted as it lacked evidence and failed to explain why all the contra evidence should be discarded.

Name one mainstream theory that has been completely accepted by all scientist within such said area of study? Never excepted, if Sitchins work was or has never been accepted do you think there would be as many authors out there who are attempting to discredit him? Or so many off shot authors of his particular work? Or so many of his books sold? Sitchin may very well be completely wrong but that he lacks evidence? Evidence is that of an outward sign, proof, testimony, it supports that which one is attempting to show to be true, anyone can have and or show evidence for anything! As well as explaining why all other "contra" evidence should be abandoned, I think he does so with every book, speech, and article he presents.

But then...this isn't what this is about, no, there is no disputing evidence, only its interpretation as to what it is supporting.

Lune:Sitchin 'theory' is nonsense

is an accurate reflection of what you and most mainstream individuals may personally believe, but when taking that in context of your entire post, like most critics fail to see the irony in all of this. Here is a man (sitchin) who takes speculation to its fullest, and makes a bold statement regarding our past. Yet whether it pans out to be true only the test of time can show, yet ironically most if not all of the hotly debated topics today are in the same catergory, Darwinism, The Big Bang theory, Ufology, Cryptozology, to name but a few. Attacking the same type of position or more likely technique that sitchin takes is an exercise in futilism, because it is essentially attacking ones self in such mentioned hotly debated topics.

This is why I personally realize that you can't go to a mainstream website with the things we discuss here nor is it evenly viable or reasonable for one from such a venue to come here. At the heart doesn't lie the scientific method, personal belief does. It should be just as viable for a laymen to turn in a paper and be thoroughly researched and tested as is a man of profession. This is far from the case, and while there are tons of crackpot laymen, this hardly means there aren't any professional ones.

Eyajwhynsos



(Edited by Gerard at 7:23 pm on May 13, 2007)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 1:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Unsupported nonsense IS nonsense. Sitchinism isn't going to get any better with age.

Sure lots of money to be made off believers who will buy fantasy books expounding on Sitchin's ideas. Lots of books are sold on lots of ideas, fantasy has always sold better than reality. Sci fi and novel more than history and economics.

I can prove he lies, I can prove his evidence is false and I can prove, very simply that he is in error. That is not in question. The only question is why do you consider your religious like belief in his cult to be valid?

You can believe in purple flying unicorns as much as you want but you look pretty silly insisting that my rejection of said unicorns is because I'm 'mainstream'. I reject it because it's nonsense.

Oh my the old interpretation ploy, okay what is your "interpretation" of Sitchin's claim - one he has held for 35 years, that modern man cannot pick or move a 600 ton rock.

I await your interpretation of that, LOL. My interpretation of it is

he's engineering challenged
he cannot do proper research
he is stubborn and won't admit he is wrong
he clearly believes he can lie to people who are believers and get away with it (and he does)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:13 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Yeah this is getting rather boring, while you continue to assume I have a "religious" like belief regarding sitchin and uk false god Mardurk seems to some how think I now believe the sumerians had pychic powers (is Mardurk uk on something)? Wow, it isn't enough that the two of you lack the ability to acutally counter what I ACTUALLY WRITE, but have to resort to generate a position you wish for me to take so as to make it easier for you to debate on my level. I seen the mad house they call In the Hall of Maat, I think they're calling ya back there guy. As with the false god, I see no point in responding to Lunetics any further, it is clear you aren't even reading let alone debating and yet feel the need to continue to come into a discussion board you yourself said was disfunctional, ahhh, thats why you keep coming back, you think this is where you belong...tisk tisk tisk. In that case feel free to keep babbling, perhaps one day, just maybe

something sensible will emerge...

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 12:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Well I was wondering how you were going to dodge 'interpreting' Sitchin's rock stand fiasco - one does have to avoid that doesn't one? LOL


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Piney Woods of East Texas
anyone following this...please jump over to read lune's and my (tharev) discussion on cranes and capacity for a whole picture. pages 3 & 4 should suffice, but the whole thread has some interesting stuff. hell, just go to wikipedia and read about modern land-based cranes and see for yourself what an amazing feat it is for MODERN man.

sitchin hasn't gone back and refined a 35 year old statement he made on lifting and moving a 600 ton block. THAT is an accurate statement, lune. and he hasn't had his website coordinator move the decimal from 2.5 to 25. another accurate statement.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:57 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Lune says: one does have to avoid that doesn't one?

Lune are you dilusional? I don't support sitchins conclusions may just be a bit to technical for you so lets put it in "below" laymens terms. I DON'T BELIEVE SITCHIN, meaning, how can I give you an INTERPRETATION of something Sitchin said? Is this all that you have, of all the post I have briefly seen, is this the prime of your posting? You have to do better then this? Ask me what I believe, or ask about something I posted, don't ask me about something that I don't believe in expecting to provide evidence for, that's the action of a Lunetic.

Just incase you didn't get that,

1. I don't believe in Sitchin conclusions or theories as valid answers

I DON'T BELIEVE STICHIN

2. There fore I can not offer an interpretation because I don't know what he means by that interpretation.

DON'T ASK ME FOR EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING I DON'T BELIEVE IN

....there, now isn't that a bit clearer. So it is obvious you won't provide an interpretation of who the anunnaki were, but by now I'm no longer interested, but that is one way to answer a question without actually answering it, ask another question. tisk tisk tisk, Disfunctional, tisk... tisk... tisk.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Soooo.....what do you believe in (as you are posting on a Zecharia Sitchin web page)?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:47 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
If you are asking me for a conclusive answer I can't give you one, it is still up in the air. But seemingly anyone who post in this room does so under the assumption of others that they believe in Sitchin? So I guess Mardurk uk, and yourself believe in Sitchin? Ever read the works of Micheal Cremo and Richard L Thompson? There work alone discredit Sitchins time line of 432,000 years ago, Micheal Cremo who professes to be a hindu does share at least one common trait with Sitchin. I say this because according to the hindu belief there are repeated stages of mankind in which at the end of each of these stages, the first being a little over 1.7 million years and the last of the four being exactly 432,000 years seems to indicate a relationship between the two authors works. If there was something I believe in, you won't find it in one particular book, I think few authors step back to look at the culmination of all works, alternative and mainstream alike.

In my opinion mainstream study or anthropology says that man kind according to tradition of many ancient cultures around the world was created to serve the gods, yet whenever you read alternative works which included ancient traditions they some how get this notion that the gods originally created man to serve them but are now attempting to help us.

Of course one has to speculate because there is first no conclusive evidence for the gods, or even ufos for that matter. So this is why I come to a board of SPECULATION, because this topic interest me, though rightly knowing there is no conclusive evidence I am however still eager for my own personal knowledge on the subject to expand.

So I am a bit at odds as to why anyone would come in here bashing the members who post here rather then sending their rants and raves to the author. Even more so, WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE? And still, by doing so push everyone in the same corner, Lune it is obvious you have been posting here for a while, appearantly though you haven't been reading or following the post or you would have known that I don't support sitchin.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:10 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
For a moment there I felt like the architect from the second Matrix after Neo asked him why he was here. I didn't answer your question...

I believe the earth was orginally being set up for the habitation of the anunnaki, and as the story goes man was created because the anunnaki workers went on strike. However, this I believe didn't happen 432,000 years ago, exact time, I don't know, but I do believe it happen well over at leat 6 billion years ago using hindu tradition as references. That the gods realizing their new status and relationship with the newly created humans went through repeated cycles in which they were present as such physically being served and worshipped as gods/rulers. Then moved to a less physical stage where they were still present on earth but only seen by a few individuals then left earth but set up "government" and lasting followings "religion" till such said cycle came to an end and thus would repeat again, in other words, I believe we humans are nothing more then characters in a game.

Speculation of course, but reasons and examples I can give. The hindu tradition says every 4 billion years the earth is essentially reset so to speak, all life everything on the surface is scorched after all the water is removed, then the water is returned and slowly the planet repopulated with life.

Why is as simple as the reason I gave for the Egyptian attire and or pose, something to do. When a society has reached the point where they have all their needs met, and even accomplished immortality, what else is there to do but play games, this is what I believe.

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:56 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
I see we are back to civilized ways with asking for me to provide examples, I say, much better then name calling wouldn't you agree, I know I sure would.

First here is a link from the one you provided in which the term anunnaki of course isn't use but the term a nun na is used to denote the anunnaki.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... 5#t141.p45

located at one instance specifically at 282-289

The name anunnaki according to the 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.

Lets get a refresh here, Jimmy, could ya post that quote:

Eyajwhynsos previously posted: I believe the earth was orginally being set up for the habitation of the anunnaki, and as the story goes man was created because the anunnaki workers went on strike.

This leads me to believe they were setting up habitation here:

[url=http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.1.3&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc&lineid=t113.p8#t113.p8

...more]http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin.......more[/url] specifically 89-90. As well Anunna gods are also mentioned in 61-80

Here is a link about the gods rebellion and why mankind was created:

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... p1#t112.p1

you can start from the top 1-11 which pretty much sums it up and the rest as the text say is history.

I previously posted: I don't know, but I do believe it happen well over at leat 6 billion years ago using hindu tradition as references

This comes from "Hindu Myths by A.L. DALLAPICCOLA" page 22 in which it talks about the four ages of man, and about a day in the life of a Brahma which is a little over 4 billion years. Most scientist agree life started around 2 billion years ago, though this I can if you like search with a more specific time, which means that if according to the Hindu myths they have "Been" doing this, then this is but another cycle they are going through and if life started around 2 billion years ago, well as I mentioned in my previous post this means that at least 6 billion years has past when the "gods" came to earth. It could be longer I don't know, but at least that long. Now I know science today says earth is nowhere near that old, but being that this isn't a proven fact, and the hindu myths implies earth is older I will have to side with the Hindu myth to support my claims. But knowing the gods obssesive behavior of repeating things, it could be the case that they act as if what they are repeating "has been" occurring, in which case we really don't know how long. Though I tend to suspect this may be more accurate but not certain.

The rest is common knowledge, that of man kind serving the gods, almost a world wide phenomenon in ancient cultures, I just believe that all of this is connected to a cycle that is being repeated as I said in our term or perception as a game, the gods see it as purpose the reason they exist and man exist, theirs and our place in the cosmos so to speak. And I guess if I were them that would be more romantic so to speak more intense more realistic, more so as if it is "suppose" to be this way and not so much simply because they "choose" it to be this way.
Why go through cycles rather then just remain here on earth, well me and Mr.PP (your favorite poster) had a lengthy convo, but if you wish to know just post so.

So using your links I hope that is satifying, if not, please feel free as I am sure ya well post your objection, perhaps more so in a "Civil" manner. As you know I have no problem saying if I am wrong or posting examples to support what I am saying, likes keep it that way...shall we.


Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:47 pm 
User avatar

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

I forgot about this thread for awhile.

As Marduk noted you state you don't believe in Sitchin but swallow his ideas....so what is the difference? It would seem you are a Sitchin believer but not even aware of it. LOL

Yeah this all sounds like high tech spacemen....

Hilarious

1-11. In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created; in those years, in the years when the fates were determined; when the Anuna gods were born; when the goddesses were taken in marriage; when the goddesses were distributed in heaven and earth; when the goddesses …… became pregnant and gave birth; when the gods were obliged (?) …… their food …… dining halls; the senior gods oversaw the work, while the minor gods were bearing the toil. The gods were digging the canals and piling up the silt in Ḫarali. The gods, crushing the clay, began complaining about this life.

12-23. At that time, the one of great wisdom, the creator of all the senior gods, Enki lay on his bed, not waking up from his sleep, in the deep engur, in the subterranean water, the place the inside of which no other god knows. The gods said, weeping: "He is the cause of the lamenting!" Namma, the primeval mother who gave birth to the senior gods, took the tears of the gods to the one who lay sleeping, to the one who did not wake up from his bed, to her son: "Are you really lying there asleep, and …… not awake? The gods, your creatures, are smashing their ……. My son, wake up from your bed! Please apply the skill deriving from your wisdom and create a substitute (?) for the gods so that they can be freed from their toil!"

24-37. At the word of his mother Namma, Enki rose up from his bed. In Ḫal-an-kug, his room for pondering, he slapped his thigh in annoyance. The wise and intelligent one, the prudent, …… of skills, the fashioner of the design of everything brought to life birth-goddesses (?). Enki reached out his arm over them and turned his attention to them. And after Enki, the fashioner of designs by himself, had pondered the matter, he said to his mother Namma: "My mother, the creature you planned will really come into existence. Impose on him the work of carrying baskets. You should knead clay from the top of the abzu; the birth-goddesses (?) will nip off the clay and you shall bring the form into existence. Let Ninmaḫ act as your assistant; and let Ninimma, Å u-zi-ana, Ninmada, Ninbarag, Ninmug, …… and Ninguna stand by as you give birth. My mother, after you have decreed his fate, let Ninmaḫ impose on him the work of carrying baskets."
5 lines fragmentary …… she placed it on grass and purified the birth.

44-51. Enki …… brought joy to their heart. He set a feast for his mother Namma and for Ninmaḫ. All the princely birth-goddesses (?) …… ate delicate reed (?) and bread. An, Enlil, and Lord Nudimmud roasted holy kids. All the senior gods praised him: "O lord of wide understanding, who is as wise as you? Enki, the great lord, who can equal your actions? Like a corporeal father, you are the one who has the me of deciding destinies, in fact you are the me."

52-55. Enki and Ninmaḫ drank beer, their hearts became elated, and then Ninmaḫ said to Enki: "Man's body can be either good or bad and whether I make a fate good or bad depends on my will."

56-61. Enki answered Ninmaḫ: "I will counterbalance whatever fate -- good or bad -- you happen to decide." Ninmaḫ took clay from the top of the abzu in her hand and she fashioned from it first a man who could not bend his outstretched weak hands. Enki looked at the man who cannot bend his outstretched weak hands, and decreed his fate: he appointed him as a servant of the king.

62-65. Second, she fashioned one who turned back (?) the light, a man with constantly opened eyes (?). Enki looked at the who turned back (?) the light, the man with constantly opened eyes (?), and decreed his fate allotting to it the musical arts, making him as the chief …… in the king's presence.

66-68. {Third, she fashioned one with both feet broken, one with paralysed feet. Enki looked at the one with both feet broken, the one with paralysed feet and …… him for the work of …… and the silversmith and …….} {(1 ms. has instead:) She fashioned one, a third one, born as an idiot. Enki looked at this one, the one born as an idiot, and decreed his fate: he appointed him as a servant of the king.}

69-71. Fourth, she fashioned one who could not hold back his urine. Enki looked at the one who could not hold back his urine and bathed him in enchanted water and drove out the namtar demon from his body.

72-74. Fifth, she fashioned a woman who could not give birth. Enki looked at the woman who could not give birth, {and decreed her fate: he made (?) her belong to the queen's household.} {(1 ms. has instead:) …… as a weaver, fashioned her to belong to the queen's household.}

75-78. Sixth, she fashioned one with neither penis nor vagina on its body. Enki looked at the one with neither penis nor vagina on its body and gave it the name 'Nibru eunuch (?)', and decreed as its fate to stand before the king.

79-82. {Ninmaḫ threw the pinched-off clay from her hand on the ground and a great silence fell}{(1 ms. has instead:) Enki threw all (?) the clay to the ground and was greatly ……}. The great lord Enki said to Ninmaḫ: "I have decreed the fates of your creatures and given them their daily bread. Come, now I will fashion somebody for you, and you must decree the fate of the newborn one!"

83-91. Enki devised a shape with head, …… and mouth in its middle, and said to Ninmaḫ: "Pour ejaculated semen into a woman's womb, and the woman will give birth to the semen of her womb." Ninmaḫ stood by for the newborn ……. and the woman brought forth …… in the midst ……. In return (?), this was Umul: its head was afflicted, its place of …… was afflicted, its eyes were afflicted, its neck was afflicted. It could hardly breathe, its ribs were shaky, its lungs were afflicted, its heart was afflicted, its bowels were afflicted. With its hand and its lolling head it could not not put bread into its mouth; its spine and head were dislocated. The weak hips and the shaky feet could not carry (?) it on the field -- Enki fashioned it in this way.

92-101. Enki said to Ninmaḫ: "For your creatures I have decreed a fate, I have given them their daily bread. Now, you should decree a fate for my creature, give him his daily bread too." Ninmaḫ looked at Umul and turned to him. She went nearer to Umul asked him questions but he could not speak. She offered him bread to eat but he could not reach out for it. He could not lie on ……, he could not ……. Standing up he could not sit down, could not lie down, he could not …… a house, he could not eat bread. Ninmaḫ answered Enki: "The man you have fashioned is neither alive nor dead. He cannot support himself (?)."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:28 pm
Posts: 99
Now Gerard below is the Shinto creation myth.

If you believe the Sumerian creation myths shows evidence that their gods were spacemen. Are the Shinto creation myths evidence that their gods were also spacemen? Also are all other creation myths proof of hosts of spacemen running around creating world after world? If not why not?

According to Japanese Shinto Mythology, at the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.

Standing on rainbow called Ama-no-ukihashi (the floating bridge of the heavens), they plunged a jewel crested spear into the ocean. When they pulled it free, the water that dripped from the spear coagulated and formed the first island of the Japanese archipelago. Izanagi and Izanami went down to this island and settled down on it. Together, on this island, they made the islands of Japan.

When Izanami died giving birth, Izanagi went to the underworld to retrieve her, but she refused to come back with him and they parted forever. When Izanagi returned from the underworld, he started the first cleaning rites. He washed his left eye and thus created the sun goddess Amaterasu. When he washed his right eye, the moon goddess Tsuki-Yumi came forth. From his nose he created Susanowo, the god of the seas and the storms.

Later, he created the first people and animals of the island.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:25 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
...I must admit now I am confused as to what you are asking me? The term anunnaki is interchangeable with anunna, I already gave the source. Does it actually matter the exact name, or are you looking for something else? What are you getting at?

You said most of what I believe is derived from sitchin and I just posted links from the source you gave me showing that anyone who read such translations for themselves can pretty much come up with a similar thought. So I must ask again what are you looking for or are attempting to say?

Eyajwhynsos


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:50 pm 

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 14
Lune says: As Marduk noted you state you don't believe in Sitchin but swallow his ideas....so what is the difference?

Eyajwhynsos Previously said: 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.

and also...

"but I did mentioned that I don't quite find his work and that of many other alternative writers on the ufo phenonmenon CONCLUSIVE."

the logical consequence of a reasoning process...

What is conclusion Alex!

It is possible, though seemingly viewed from others, upon this discussion board, eyes to except evidence via an individual as valid but not except such individuals conclusions. So in response to Mardurk uk and Lunes assumptions that I don't Believe sitchin but swallows his ideas...

First Lunes inability to actually read what I write lead me to write in bold letters I don't believe in sitchin as a summary after writing what I had been writing that of I don't follow or believe in his CONCLUSIONS. I do believe in many of his ideas regarding the anunnaki who are also known as I have pointed out as the anunna, however few if any of these ideas have I recently and by recent with in the last say six months posted on this board. That which I do post that Sitchin claims is often works one can find in ancient Mesopotamian literature.

Second, while I am far from anal on the distinction of the sumerian culture and that of the rest of the mesopotamian cultures when it comes to myth, for the most part they are believe to have mostly originated or include material that orginated from the sumerians, however I fail to see the relevance of this. So while I am unable to find anunnkai in the links Mardurk uk list, a similar name anunna is found, and in The Sumerians: their history, culture, and character by Samuel Noah Kramer (incidentally he also shows gudea of lagash on the cover appearently one of the foremost figures on the subject is giving a false impression of who is sumerian?) says:

"The fifty "great gods" are never named but seem to be identical with the anunnaki, the children of An...No doubt some of the numerous gods mentioned thoughout this book belong to the Anunnkaki"

...appearantly also agrees the sumerian gods where the anunnaki.

Again here I am in a sort of dejavu if ya will, five months ago having convo with Mr.PP over what the difference is between awareness and intelligence and all the way repeating myself. My humble suggestion, READ what I ACTUALLY write. This can clear up alot of things, do not attempt to summerize my thoughts unless you actually know what it is I am writing.

Speaking of the differences between intelligence and awareness this brings me to this, Lune says:

"Yeah this all sounds like high tech spacemen.... "

and also...

"If you believe the Sumerian creation myths shows evidence that their gods were spacemen. Are the Shinto creation myths evidence that their gods were also spacemen? Also are all other creation myths proof of hosts of spacemen running around creating world after world? If not why not?"

First, I personally have no way of knowing if these gods influenced each myth or not, but lets for the sake of argument say that the mesopotamian myths and that of the Japanese myth were influence according to them by their gods. If as I believe this is but a game, would you want your players to figure out exactly what is taking place, one of the reason I believe the gods have according to hindu belief cycles of different times ending each cycle only to repopulate the human race, has to do with not wanting the players to realize they are in a game(in other words religious practices and the acts to appear miraculous not logical and scientific).

While it is evident that in the mesopotamian myths the gods often used extreme measures to curb the overpopulation, what isn't written but is my own personal opinion is that if humas were allowed to keep existing uninterupted it would pose a threat to the game itself. I say this because of the very nature of intelligence to find and gather information toward a specific goal. In other words humans would naturally begin to question the true nature of the anunnaki. As time goes by the gods become less physically present, they advoid being seen by the masses, they don't REPEAT themselves in front of the masses or keep similar themes running continuously. The gods don't want the humans to come to terms of what is actually taking place because then as a whole the human population would not willing serve false gods. So at the end of each age the human population is some how not specific in the hindu traditions, wiped out and repopulated, or as I have said the game is reset and new characters are created.

Eyajwhynsos

Simple conclusion here, I don't follow astronomy's conclusions, or evolutions conclusions, alternative writings on ETs conclusions, even the conclusions of Hindu mythology, but they all have something I take from and attempt to formulate an image of what may be taking place. So while I don't support the conclusions of such said examples DOES NOT IN NO WAY MEAN I don't support their evidence.


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

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: