It is currently Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

 Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:10 am
Posts: 80
Location: East Coast
Darwin's theory of evolution is out the window somewhat as far as homo sapians if we are to believe et's genetically engineered us.

Darwin's theory of evolution describes two of the most important discoveries ever made:

1. that all life has decended from a single common ancestor, and

2. that the various species decending from this ancestral creature have decended with modification.

If ET's provided the missing link via test tubes mixing their genes with Neanderthals to arrive at Cromagnon man, which I personally believe, then we have an uncommon ancestor in the wood pile screwing rule 1.

Rule two omits listing the commonly believed idea of 'gradual evolution' as well. Oops, another rule violated. Too bad science will not address this possibility for fear of ridicule.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:08 pm 
The only book I have in my library and read on remote viewing is Mind Trek, by Joseph McMoneagle. Trained by the military establishment, his bottom line is that remote viewing is rather nebulous and often incorrect.

I believe it was Scientific American a year or so ago that had a lengthy and interesting article on the different "races" of mankind. Yes, it followed the current Myth Makers' view of anthropology, but I managed to swallow my bile and read every word.

What I came away from the article was one interesting postulation: according to the authors, our "race" wiped out all of the other "races." Our "race" was not necessarily the strongest or the brightest, just the most aggressive with a desire to be the "sole masters of the Earth."

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:20 pm 
I like that idea of devolution. I've read in many sources that human beings tend not to evolve but to devolve. One source cited that the "junk" in our DNA increases, not decreases, and "before long" we humans will just cease to exist.

It has been postuated by others that there are demonstrable points in history where humans have been "jump-started" by something. In many cases, these authors cite an external source or intervention.

I, too, decry the Modern Mythmakers adamancy in using "millions of years" as a necessary yardstick. If we trace our current humanity back only to 6,000 years ago (a date usually ascribed to the Bible), which came back from something really bad that nearly wiped all life out (whatever that was), there is something to be said about devolution.

Oh, sure, we can proclaim that we 21st Century humans are lightyears ahead of our Sumerian ancestors, but are we? What are the deciding factors in evaluating progression? Computers? Airplanes? AI? If in only a few years (and I mean "overnight") civilizations like the Sumerians built a high technological civilization but it has taken hundreds of years to progress in the last few centuries--I mean, we as a human race must be devolving mentally and spiritually.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:15 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Houston, Texas
i have recently read a book that seems to place evolution/devolution into perspective. It describes how, during the timeline of mankind, we will experience genetic mutations for a certain period but, all will return to as it was. It uses the reigns of the pharoahs to explain it.:
The queen Pharoah Hathesput and the effiminate Pharoah Akhenaton are examples of the mutation of mankind's way of thinking, spirituality, and lifestyles. It also shows the healing that follows. The healing of the body so to speak. It gives examples of the different cycles of time and the importance of finding our individual place in the whole. "Her-Bak: Chick Pea".
Maybe it will provide a little more insight.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 19
A couple thoughts...
Perhaps the seed we all sprang from, including all life on this planet, is a standard thing. The Nibs sprang from it as well, elsewhere, and long ago; Giving them more time to evolve or, devolve as the case may be.
I chose to believe that they are technologically superior, and spiritually, lost. Their history supports this.
I also choose to believe that remote viewing is an approximate science, and always will be, because Destiny, and Freewill, have an interplay.
In physics, we break particles down smaller, and smaller, and learn that the smallest particles have "probabilities", I.E.-- they might be one thing, or they might be another!!!
Remote viewing has shown some truly amazing things though, and when separate groups in different mind sets all encounter the same things, you start leaning towards a reality.
The findings that seem to relate here are those that indicate we are being fed off of, by some malignant force, that seems to crave our negative emotions; despair, fear, pain, etc., sounds sick, but many different groups report the same thing.
Many groups report that there are higher and higher levels of Authority, (I.E We report to the Nibs, they report to Anu, he reports to...?
And ???? reports to????????!!!!!!
There seems to be rules regarding the physical interplay between levels, and the mental/siritual as well.
I choose to believe, that when we were 'created',
the enlil group wanted us kept as cattle, while the Enki group, was excited by our possibilities. being that enlil was Anu's heir, he was in power, and demanded we be kept down or destroyed. Not much has changed.

The Baal/ marduk faction, seems to have been chased into hiding, perhaps by some much higher authority who mandated that they stop playing "god"(which they never were), bringing an end to an era.
enlils' heir marduk, is probably the big cheese down here now, and regards us still as cattle, or worse.
what happened to the Enki faction is not clear, but perhaps Jesus is involved and the Essenes were one of the groups hip to Enki's ideas: like you are part God, work on it! Of course religions like christianity are quickly gobbled up by power structures, and then end up being tools of them, teaching hate, guilt, and judgement of yourself and others. Note; the Inquisitions.

The bottom line is this;
THEY (Baals group) apparently control all banking, religion, politics, and science down here. They keep us stupid, malcontent, and in fear, keeping us slaves. We worship in their manufactured ways, that ignore the most important truth: We have the power to connect with the highest plane of existance directly. Heaven is right inside us. And it's FREE.
they don't appreciate that at all. It robs them of their "percieved" power. Putting them rightfully outside the loop. They don't like that. they like to filter everything before we get it.
Let's do a check list of what centers of power and knowledge we feel have been subverted......
Science. Yep. big-money foundations own it.
History. Botched. used as a tool to subjugate.
Religion. Sold. a power structure, selling guilt and fear.
Media. Gee, is anyone gonna say it's untwisted??
Politics. Run by the Banks.
Finance. the root of all Evil. Power behind all thrones.

What is left?? what is left for us to control???
So don't believe the hype. You have an unlimited capability of direct communication with the infinite. Consumerism, science, and subverted religions be damned. God wants us as friends without the middle-men taking their cut.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:15 pm
Posts: 93
Location: Houston, Texas
You are most profound indeed. Your words are worth meditating on. Keep sharing!

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
First off I need to make something clear. Marduk is the first born son of Enki not Enlil. Which also means that Baal and Marduk are not related. Baal's other nicknames are Adad, Hadad, and most importantly Ishkur. The confusion may lie with the cooperation between Thoth/Ningishzidda and the Enlil group. Then there is the Enlilite's Ianna marriage to the Enkite Dumuzi. Mutantone, please don't take my critism negatively. The whole family tree of the Anunnaki was very confusing to me until my second time reading through the Earth Chronicles.

Everything else you said I agree with. Marduk/Satan is still in control of us humans. Our liberator could either be Thoth and/or the Enlilites. Being the son of my favorite god, Enki, I used to hold Marduk on the same pedestal but after relearning how his influence has changed things for the worse I've jumped onto the other side of the fence. I can't blame the father for the sins of the son but somebody needs to put Marduk back into his place. I wonder if the Age of Aquarius is still going to be under the reign of Marduk or of Enki since he is the one represted by the zodiac of Aquarius?

Now let's get back to man's DNA. The 'junk' in our DNA is what was left over when we evolved from a lesser life-form (like fish) into the next stage (like amphibians). The DNA requried by fish to grow gills is still within our DNA but it has been 'turned off'. If there is a mutation that turns on that DNA it could be consided as de-evolution but if it's cause by something like what happened in the movie Waterworld it could be considered as forward evolution.

Our DNA hasn't changed much over the last 13,000 years but it has been mixed with all the races (well for those of us who can say that they are a mixed breed). What effect that has had on our genes is yet to be determined but I don't think our genes have everything to do with something like longevity. I assume it's our environment and lifestyle that keeps us from living as long as the ancients. Maybe after we stop creating cancer causing particles, start eating and drinking high antioxidants, and sheild ourselves from the sun's radiation we can become 'eternal'.

(Edited by Areles at 10:10 am on Aug. 21, 2005)

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:57 pm 
I am neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist, so I guess that means I don't know where I would fit in.

I did a Google on Junk DNA, and Wikipedia has this to say below. BTW, I hate posting a long section of a site I find for reference, but I'll make an exception in this case. In the future, I'll just post some introductory paragraph and the reference.

In molecular biology, "junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified. About 97% of the human genome has been designated as junk, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this sequence is probably an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some of it may function in ways that are not currently understood. Recent studies have, in fact, suggested functions for certain portions of what has been called junk DNA. The "junk" label is therefore recognized as something of a misnomer.

Broadly, the science of functional genomics has developed widely accepted techniques to characterize protein-coding genes, RNA genes, and regulatory regions. In the genomes of most plants and animals, however, these together constitute only a small percentage of genomic DNA (less than 2% in the case of humans). The function of the remainder, if any, remains under investigation. Most of it can be identified as repetitive elements that have no known biological function (although they are useful to geneticists for analyzing lineage and phylogeny). Still, a large amount of sequence in these genomes falls under no existing classification other than "junk".

It is notable that overall genome size, and by extension the amount of junk DNA, appears to have little relationship to organism complexity: the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubis contains more than 200 times the amount of DNA in human. The Fugu rubripes pufferfish genome is only about one tenth the size of the human, yet seems to have a comparable number of genes. Most of the variance appears to lie in what is now known only as junk DNA. This puzzle is known as the "C-value enigma".

There are many theories about the factors that shaped junk DNA and why it persists in the genome:
· These chromosomal regions are the remains of ancient pseudogenes, which have been cast aside and fragmented during evolution. A related hypothesis suggests that the junk represents the accumulated DNA of retroviruses.
· Junk DNA may act as a protective buffer against genetic damage and harmful mutations. If an overwhelming percentage of DNA is irrelevant to metabolic and developmental processes, then it is unlikely that any single, random mutation to the nucleotide sequence will affect the organism.
· Junk DNA might provide a reservoir of sequences from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. In this way, it may be the genetic basis for evolution. Over time many mutations accrue, most of which, statistically speaking, will affect the junk DNA and not the functional DNA. Furthermore these mutations may change parts of the junk DNA until they become functional, thus giving the organism a new feature or attribute.
· Junk DNA could serve presently unknown regulatory functions, controlling the expression of certain genes and/or the development of an organism from embryo to adult.
· Junk DNA may serve other, unknown purposes. For example, some non-coding RNAs have been discovered in what had been considered junk.
· Junk DNA may contain no function. For example, recent experiments removed 1% of the mouse genome and were unable to detect any effect on the phenotype³. This result suggests that the DNA is, in fact, non-functional. However, it remains a possibility that there is some function that the experiments performed on the mice were merely insufficient to detect.
By now, it is fairly certain that a combination of these are true, or partly true. Many would therefore argue that a more precise term like "noncoding DNA" is preferable to "junk".

Evolutionary conservation of "junk" DNA
Comparative genomics is a promising direction in studying the function of junk DNA. Biologically functional sequences, as the theory goes, tend to undergo mutation at a slower rate than nonfunctional sequence, since mutations in these sequences are likely to be selected against. For example, the coding sequence of a human protein-coding gene is typically about 80% identical to its mouse ortholog, while their genomes as a whole are much more widely diverged. Analyzing the patterns of conservation between the genomes of different species can suggest which sequences are functional, or at least which functional sequences are shared by those species. Functional elements stand out in such analyses as having diverged less than the surrounding sequence.

Comparative studies of several mammalian genomes suggest that approximately 5% of the human genome has evolved under purifying selection5 since the divergence of the mammals. Since known functional sequence comprises less than 2% of the human genome, it appears that there may be more functional "junk" DNA in the human genome than there is known functional sequence.

A surprising recent finding was the discovery of nearly 500 ultraconserved elements, which are shared at extraordinarily high fidelity among the available vertebrate genomes, in what had previously been designated as junk DNA. The function of these sequences is currently under intense scrutiny, and there are preliminary indications that some may play a regulatory role in vertebrate development from embryo to adult.

It must be noted that all present results concerning evolutionarily conserved human "junk" DNA are expressed in highly preliminary, probabilistic terms, since only a handful of related genomes are available. As more verterbrate, and especially mammalian, genomes are sequenced, scientists will develop a clearer picture of this important class of sequence. However, it is always possible, though highly unlikely, that there are significant quantities of functional human DNA that are not shared among these species, and which would thus not be revealed by these studies.
On a theoretical note, it is often observed that the presence of high proportions of truly nonfunctional "junk" DNA would seem to defy evolutionary logic. Replication of such a large amount of useless information each time a cell divides would waste energy. Organisms with less nonfunctional DNA would thus enjoy a selective advantage, and over an evolutionary time scale, nonfunctional DNA would tend to be eliminated. If one assumes that most junk DNA is indeed nonfunctional, then there are several hypotheses for why it has not been eliminated by evolution: (1) the energy required to replicate even large amounts of nonfunctional DNA is in fact relatively insignificant on the cellular or organismal scale, so no selective pressure results; (2) the aforementioned possible advantage of having extra DNA as a reservoir of potentially useful sequences; and (3) retroviral or transposon insertions of nonfunctional sequence occurring faster than evolution can eliminate it. These are all hypotheses for which the time scales involved in evolution may make it difficult for humans to rigorously investigate.

Creation-evolution controversy

The question of whether junk DNA is really junk has played a minor role in the creation-evolution controversy. Some proponents of evolution hold (1) that at least some junk DNA is truly nonfunctional and (2) that this is evidence for common descent, since the hierarchy of nonfunctional genetic similarities mimics the phylogenetic tree. [1] Advocates of creationism and intelligent design typically contend that no DNA is junk, or that such junk DNA demonstrates only deterioration rather than macroevolution. Another claim commonly made by creationists is that the theory of evolution caused scientists to assume most DNA was functionless, stifling research into the functions of junk DNA.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 19
Areles, I supppose I garbled Baal and Marduk together in my post (I have no idea though, since I can't find my previous post).
I read the books several years ago, and have been researching elsewhere quite a bit.
It seemed that although marduk was Enki's offspring, his overbeaaring ego led him to no end of crimes against written history, mankind, and other gods.
I had equated his usurping the throne, and finally being validated, (with Inanna's help, I believe??)
with his henceforth being called "puissant Baal" or Lord. The (french?) adjective puissant, meaning I guess, powerful. In other words, I believed the term 'Baal' to mean either the generic 'lord' (by humans) to a more specific "Ruling -type-lord."
I gathered it might have been used by humans toward nibs, as well as nibs to other nibs, for showing deference to the one in power. (Number 60, right?)
Thank you for pointing it out. I apologize if I am wrong.

Now, if I garbled his lineage as well, I imagine it's because Marduk's anti-human posture made me think of him as Enlilite leaning (i.e.- humans are abominable).

Which brings up another question; Was marduk's ascendancy smoothed over with the Enlilite faction by assurances that he would deal with us mutants in more Enlilite fashion? Maybe He pays tribute? Either way, we certainly are being kept ignorant by the concerted efforts of somebody, and our banking system is hilarious!!! if I was a superstitious man, I might make a case just out of the math involved with banking....360 payments, in a "Bankers Year" of 360 days (Base 60 mathematics--good old Sumer!!!).

But I digress...
The main thrust of this needs to address
-------- THE Missing Link,
and I believe Lloyd Pye is doing a stand-up job of tidying up loose ends in the science sector.
I try to be somewhat of an epistemologist, and I deeply appreciate people who can explain anything complicated to me in laymens' terms. I would urge all readers to visit his website.
(I think.)

Now for the bomb:
My family and friends experienced missing-link encounters on our ranch..(.bigfoot is the silly media term). Which sparked much of my subsequent rejection of many cherished evolutionary theories.
Laugh if you will readers, I am beyond caring;
and believe-it-or not, those hairy bastards are out there.
(Oh, wait... WE are the bastards!)
The irony of any Zecharia Sitchin reader possibly scoffing at my bigfoot beliefs is tickling me-- it's the pot calling the kettle black, and- one supports the other!!!

If you would have a missing link, you need look no further; Lloyd Pye demonstrates the verity of current living hominids, and points out our genetic anomalies, quoting chapter and verse of DNA terminology and function. I have yet to hear of anyone on this site posting a link, and being that I am something of a Neandertal, I don't know how.
Hey Areles! check out that site, and see if anything gels with your current studies on genetics. Thank you for your reply, your posts have been very cool.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 19


Someone coined the phrase "Interventionist", and I heard it yesterday, and thought it would serve pretty good for us Sitchinites. Great post.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
I recently read, thanks to MrP, Ignorant Design as a new buzz word. Pretty funny in light of the creationist backed Intelligent Design theory. What irritates me with the creationists is that if Sitchin is right, then there was some Intelligent Design behind our sudden evolution, just not the kind they promote.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
Mutantone, I totally understand where you are coming from. Since the name Baal ended up becoming the generic term for 'lord' it makes translations seem confusing unless you know the whole history for every word. When Marduk assumed the rank of 50 he was given all 50 names so that compounds the problem even further. (Maybe we can add or change a few of the names due to him being Satan and an a55hole as far as I am concerned.)

Something I learned recently is that when Marduk rose to power one of his new rules involved putting women into a very low standard compared to where they were before. Marduk hated Inanna for marrying his brother Dumuzi and trying to become the Queen of Egypt. And for some reason he hated Ninharsag probably since she was the mother of Ninurta, Marduk's primary rival. (Inanna was always looking for a way to become a Queen which usually involved stepping on Marduk's toes.)

I wouldn't say that Marduk is anti-human but rather wanting to be in a postion to have total control over humans. Similar to that Muslum dude who can trace his lineage to Muhammad and tells all Muslims how to live. To Marduk humans are a tool that he can use to acheive his goals (just like the Tower of Babel incident). We get blamed for it even though we blindly do what our 'creators' tell us to do. If I ever meet Marduk I'll be sure to place a fist into his mouth.

When Marduk was proclaimed as King of the Gods he was given every attribute of every god. All the gods were forced to bow down to him but rejected his proposal that they all live in Babylon. Some went east as far as China but a few stayed around to challenge him even further. (Hence why things are still screwed up). Marduk undoubtabally (sp?) uses money to control humans. While the Enlilites have been trying to use religion (although Marduk has a religion that follows him too).

Bigfoot, (which could be considered as an advanced homo erectus), is where we originated from but isn't the 'link' that scientists are looking for. They can't explain clearly how we went from being hairy all over into becoming what we are today. Some have reasoned that Man had become semi-aquatic which explains the layer of fat that is called blubber in mammals such as seals and walruses. Even the hair that we do have seem to follow the flow of water as it travels over the body while swimming. Not only that but newborns have an uncanny ability to swim and the instinct to hold onto a woman's (or maybe even a man's) long hair while in the water.

This all can be attributed to the 'Naki who came from a watery planet. Their planet also was considered as a planet with mountains so it wasn't completely covered with water. Until we can learn more about Nibiru and its past it is hard to say for sure how all those attributes came to be. Basically the missing link is the 'Naki male who's blood or seed was used. Ninki also added herself to the mix so there is more than one 'link'. Then again Enki suppposedly fathered Adapa and maybe even Noah. It's hard to say how much 'Naki blood we have within us.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:54 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
This is just an overall observation, but have those of you who regurgitate Sitchin's interrelationship of the pantheon of Sumerian deities and the relation of these to actual human events (history) and transitioning leadership, have you ever sought out to document what portion of this is actually anchored to concrete references in the form or writings or entablature which support these conclusions?

I think Sitchin has made a great many conclusions to further his writings, many of which are not supported by any concrete evidence.

For example, when referencing the transition to Marduk or the transition of Baal from a name to a more broadly applied title, do you have any concrete archaeologic evidence to reference this upon whatsoever? Does Sitchin make direct reference to and analysis of any particular writing?

Or are we just furthering a new mythology made from the old, this one with even less concrete ties to the past?

If references and control transistions are indeed supported, then specific reference to these ancient texts in making assertions would most certainly advance further discussion.

(Edited by Tripp at 8:00 am on Sep. 6, 2005)

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:46 am 
I prefer not to provide the source for the following, as there was a lot of disturbing information within the site. But, I found the following very interesting:


in Mesopotamian religion, the chief god of the city of Babylon and the national god of Babylonia; as such he was eventually called simply Bel, or Lord. Originally he seems to have been a god of thunderstorms. A poem, known as Enuma elish and dating from the reign of Nebuchadrezzar I (1124-03 BC), relates Marduk's rise to such preeminence that he was the god of 50 names, each one that of a deity or of a divine attribute. After conquering the monster of primeval chaos, Tiamat, he became Lord of the Gods of Heaven and Earth. All nature, including man, owed its existence to him; the destiny of kingdoms and subjects was in his hands.

Marduk's chief temples at Babylon were the Esagila and the Etemenanki, a ziggurat with a shrine of Marduk on the top. In the Esagila the poem Enuma elish was recited every year at the New Year festival. The goddess named most often as the consort of Marduk was Zarpanitu.

Marduk's star was Jupiter, and his sacred animals were horses, dogs, and especially the so-called dragon with forked tongue, representations of which adorn his city's walls. On the oldest monuments Marduk is represented holding a triangular spade or hoe, interpreted as an emblem of fertility and vegetation. He is also pictured walking or in his war chariot. Typically, his tunic is adorned with stars; in his hand is a sceptre, and he carries a bow, spear, net, or thunderbolt. Kings of Assyria and Persia also honoured Marduk and Zarpanitu in inscriptions and rebuilt many of their temples.

Marduk was later known as Bel, a name derived from the Semitic word baal, or "lord. Bel" had all the attributes of Marduk, and his status and cult were much the same. Bel, however, gradually came to be thought of as the god of order and destiny. In Greek writings references to Bel indicate this Babylonian deity and not the Syrian god of Palmyra of the same name.


Hebrew Livyatan, in Jewish mythology, a primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth, especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal. In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14 as a multiheaded sea serpent that is killed by God and given as food to the Hebrews in the wilderness. In Isaiah 27:1, Leviathan is a serpent and a symbol of Israel's enemies, who will be slain by God. In Job 41, it is a sea monster and a symbol of God's power of creation.


also spelled Yam, ancient West Semitic deity who ruled the oceans, rivers, lakes, and underground springs. He also played an important role in the Baal myths recorded on tablets uncovered at Ugarit, which say that at the beginning of time Yamm was awarded the divine kingship by El, the chief god of the pantheon. One day, Yamm's messengers requested that the gods surrender Baal to be a bond servant to Yamm. El finally agreed, but Baal refused to go and instead engaged Yamm in battle. After a furious fight, in which the craftsman Kothar supplied Baal with two special weapons, Yamm was finally slain and the kingship given to Baal. According to some scholars, Yamm was the same deity as Lotan (Hebrew: Leviathan), who was represented as a hydralike dragon or serpent.


god worshiped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, especially among the Canaanites, who apparently considered him a fertility deity and one of the most important gods in the pantheon. As a Semitic common noun baal (Hebrew baÅal) meant “owner” or “lord,” although it could be used more generally; for example, a baal of wings was a winged creature, and, in the plural, baalim of arrows indicated archers. Yet such fluidity in the use of the term baal did not prevent it from being attached to a god of distinct character. As such, Baal designated the universal god of fertility, and in that capacity his title was Prince, Lord of the Earth. He was also called the Lord of Rain and Dew, the two forms of moisture that were indispensable for fertile soil in Canaan. In Ugaritic and Old Testament Hebrew, Baal's epithet as the storm god was He Who Rides on the Clouds. In Phoenician he was called Baal Shamen, Lord of the Heavens.

Knowledge of Baal's personality and functions derives chiefly from a number of tablets uncovered from 1929 onward at Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), in northern Syria, and dating to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. The tablets, although closely attached to the worship of Baal at his local temple, probably represent Canaanite belief generally. Fertility was envisaged in terms of seven-year cycles. In the mythology of Canaan, Baal, the god of life and fertility, locked in mortal combat with Mot, the god of death and sterility. If Baal triumphed, a seven-year cycle of fertility would ensue; but, if he were vanquished by Mot, seven years of drought and famine would ensue.

Ugaritic texts tell of other fertility aspects of Baal, such as his relations with Anath, his consort and sister, and also his siring a divine bull calf from a heifer. All this was part of his fertility role, which, when fulfilled, meant an abundance of crops and fertility for animals and mankind.

But Baal was not exclusively a fertility god. He was also king of the gods, and, to achieve that position, he was portrayed as seizing the divine kingship from Yamm, the sea god.

The myths also tell of Baal's struggle to obtain a palace comparable in grandeur to those of other gods. Baal persuaded Asherah to intercede with her husband El, the head of the pantheon, to authorize the construction of a palace. The god of arts and crafts, Kothar, then proceeded to build for Baal the most beautiful of palaces which spread over an area of 10,000 acres. The myth may refer in part to the construction of Baal's own temple in the city of Ugarit. Near Baal's temple was that of Dagon, given in the tablets as Baal's father.

In the formative stages of Israel's history, the presence of Baal names did not necessarily mean apostasy or even syncretism. The judge Gideon was also named Jerubbaal (Judges 6:32), and King Saul had a son named Ishbaal (I Chronicles 8:33). For those early Hebrews, “Baal” designated the Lord of Israel, just as “Baal” farther north designated the Lord of Lebanon or of Ugarit. What made the very name Baal anathema to the Israelites was the program of Jezebel, in the 9th century BC, to introduce into Israel her Phoenician cult of Baal in opposition to the official worship of Yahweh (I Kings 18). By the time of the prophet Hosea (mid-8th century BC) the antagonism to Baalism was so strong that the use of the term Baal was often replaced by the contemptuous boshet (“shame”); in compound proper names, for example, Ishbosheth replaced the earlier Ishbaal.


also spelled Dagan, West Semitic god of crop fertility, worshiped extensively throughout the ancient Middle East. Dagan was the Hebrew and Ugaritic common noun for “grain,” and the god Dagan was the legendary inventor of the plow. His cult is attested as early as about 2500 BC, and, according to texts found at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), he was the father of the god Baal. Dagan had an important temple at Ras Shamra, and in Palestine, where he was particularly known as a god of the Philistines, he had several sanctuaries, including those at Beth-dagon in Asher (Joshua 19:27), Gaza (Judges 16:23), and Ashdod(1 Samuel 5:2–7). At Ras Shamra, Dagan was apparently second in importance only to El, the supreme god, although his functions as a god of vegetation seem to have been transferred to Baal by about 1500 BC.

Ogony (account of the origin of the gods)

Though the “Eridu Genesis” may have come close to treating existence as a whole, a true cosmogonic and cosmological myth that deals centrally with the origins, structuring, and functional principles of the cosmos does not actually appear until Old Babylonian times, when Mesopotamian culture was entering a period of doubt about the moral character of world government and even of divine power itself. Yet, the statement is a positive one, almost to the point of defiance. Enuma elish tells of a beginning when all was a watery chaos and only the sea, Tiamat, and the sweet waters underground, Apsu, mingled their waters together. Mummu, the personified original watery form, served as Apsu's page. In their midst the gods were born. The first pair, Lahmu and Lahamu, represented the powers in silt; the next, Anshar and Kishar, those in the horizon. They engendered the god of heaven, Anu, and he in turn the god of the flowing sweet waters, Ea.

This tradition is known in a more complete form from an ancient list of gods called An: Anum. There, after a different beginning, Lahmu and Lahamu give rise to Duri and Dari, “the time-cycle”; and these in turn give rise to Enshar and Ninshar, Lord and Lady Circle. Enshar and Ninshar engender the concrete circle of the horizon, in the persons of Anshar and Kishar, probably conceived as silt deposited along the edge of the universe. Next was the horizon of the greater heaven and earth, and then—omitting an intrusive line—heaven and earth, probably conceived as two juxtaposed flat disks formed from silt deposited inward from the horizons.

Enuma elish truncates these materials and violates their inner logic considerably. Though they are clearly cosmogonic and assume that the cosmic elements and the powers informing them come into being together, Enuma elish seeks to utilize them for apure the ogony. The creation of the actual cosmos is dealt with much later. Also, the introduction of Mummu, the personified “original form,” which in the circumstances can only be that of water, may have led to the omission of Ki, Earth, who—as non watery—did not fit in.

The gods, who in Enuma elish come into being within Apsu and Tiamat, are viewed as dynamic creatures, who contrast strikingly with the older generation. Apsu and Tiamat stand for inertia and rest. This contrast leads to a series of conflicts in which first Apsu is killed by Ea; then Tiamat, who was roused later to attack the gods, is killed by Ea's son Marduk. It is Marduk, the hero of the story, who creates the extant universe out of the body of Tiamat. He cuts her, like a dried fish, in two, making one-half of her into heaven—appointing there Sun, Moon, and stars to execute their prescribed motions—and the other half into the Earth. He pierces her eyes to let the Tigris and Euphrates flow forth, and then, heaping mountains on her body in the east, he makes the various tributaries of the Tigris flow out from her breasts. The remainder of the story deals with Marduk's organization of the cosmos, his creation of man, and his assigning to the gods their various cosmic offices and tasks. The cosmos is viewed as structured as, and functioning as, a benevolent absolute monarchy.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:45 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
"The gods, who in Enuma elish come into being within Apsu and Tiamat, are viewed as dynamic creatures, who contrast strikingly with the older generation. Apsu and Tiamat stand for inertia and rest. This contrast leads to a series of conflicts in which first Apsu is killed by Ea; then Tiamat, who was roused later to attack the gods, is killed by Ea's son Marduk. It is Marduk, the hero of the story, who creates the extant universe out of the body of Tiamat. He cuts her, like a dried fish, in two, making one-half of her into heaven—appointing there Sun, Moon, and stars to execute their prescribed motions—and the other half into the Earth. He pierces her eyes to let the Tigris and Euphrates flow forth, and then, heaping mountains on her body in the east, he makes the various tributaries of the Tigris flow out from her breasts. The remainder of the story deals with Marduk's organization of the cosmos, his creation of man, and his assigning to the gods their various cosmic offices and tasks. The cosmos is viewed as structured as, and functioning as, a benevolent absolute monarchy. "

interesting, if the author of the previous text can go so far as to understand and realize the cosmogonical nature of the Enuma Elish and related texts what exactly is preventing him from assuming that Tiamat is in fact a planet, more especificaly, Earth?
if he could pierce the rudimentary symbolism of those texts and realize the essence of a creation myth what prevents him from seeing a tentative explanation for the origin of our own solar system in these texts?

Sitchin might be wrong in many things and he can even be accused of twisting facts to fit his theory but his interpretation of the Enuma Elish remains, in my opinion, the only real effort to see through the mysticism presented in such creation myths. as Maurice Chatelain noticed in his own work after digging through the ancient records, the ancients did in fact know of the planets beyond Jupiter, they kept extensive and precise calendars and calculations of the motion of the solar system through millenia.

if they had such knowlledge, and i believe they had, its only natural to demistify the misticism and reasemble the symbology into what it truly appears to represent: esoteric knowlledge about our solar system and humanities place in the scheme of creation.

(Edited by outcast at 12:49 am on Sep. 7, 2005)

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

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: