In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

OK. So when and where were the Sumerians and Hopi last a single tribal entity? That could pin point the knowledge transfer.

Hard to say they ever were after migrating out of Africa, I believe the Flood is linked to the end of the ice age so the Tower of Babel could be anywhere from ~13-5k years ago.

I've done a bit of checking about the Hopi. Ant people or ant friends do not seem to appear as part of either the Hopi mythology or language. Spider woman is a major character in their creation story though.

Neither anu nor naki seem to be actual Hopi words.

The Hopi word for ant is qala.
The Hopi words for friend include 8 choices none of which even look like naki.

Source: English Hopi dictionary: https://en.glosbe.com/en/hop/friend

I'll look into it

 

[Birdjaguar]

Basically... But according to Sitchin these aliens were born from the same events that produced life here. And thats the biggest problem I have with his theory, it requires life on a planet that gets virtually no sunlight except when it visits the asteroid belt every ~3600 years. Not just life, but "human" life. I'd sooner believe they came on a spaceship from another system.

Sitchin is wrong dot com. This site has some pretty damning evidence that everything you propose that relates to Sitchin is, well, wrong.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And one more link. This one has a scholarly analysis of your cylinder seal 243 and tells exactly why Sitchin's ideas are completely wrong.

Everything you didn't want to know about Sumerian cylinder seals and astronomical representation. It is actually quite readable and has lots of pictures.

 

[Berzerker]

the name of that site sounds familiar, I'll check it out but if its the one I read before it didn't impress me... We dont need Sitchin to read the Enuma Elish

you'll need to quote your links

as for antfriends, its surprisingly hard finding a good Hopi dictionary, this one has the black ant as toko'anu and the red ant as pala'anu

http://www.suduva.com/el_morro_words.htm

So anu does mean ant, unfortunately I dont see friend on their list and your link suggests its translations are not thorough or accurate

as for VA 243, Edwin Krupp wrote a piece for Sky and Telescope trying to debunk Sitchin, he had to retract his rebuttal...

edit: wrt your link

He claims the center symbol is not the sun because its represented by other symbols. Those other symbols represent the deity (Utu/Shamash) associated with the sun, they do not represent the sun from the Enuma Elish. Utu/Shamash is not the sun in their creation story.

Your source then argues the other dots are stars. not planets. Thats based on the alleged representation of the Pleiades as 7 dots. Those 7 dots represent the Earth, as Shulgi said - the celestial 7 is 50. Thats a reference to Enlil's rank of 50, Enlil is Lord Earth... Btw, the same 7 dots appear in the same order in the Incan creation story and they represent Earth.

Your source then claims there is nothing in Middle Eastern literature about the existence of more than 5 planets. That isn't true, the Enuma Elish describes 8 "olden gods" before Marduk arrives to create Heaven and Earth. As Marduk approaches battle the text declares him clothed with the halo of 10 gods. This was before the Moon makes its appearance in the story, so Marduk joined 11 gods. He then confuses the winged disk with the sun, the winged disk is God.

I can go on, he notes that the Sumerians depicted "stars" with 6, 7 or 8 points while acknowledging Venus (Inanna/Istar) was an 8 pointed star... Venus is the 8th planet, Earth was often represented by a 7 pointed star (Earth is the 7th planet) and Mars was shown with 6 points, Mars is the 6th planet.

Here's another mistake:

In this example, the obvious star
symbol has eight points, and is
very similar in design to the
star symbol of VA 243. We know it’s a star
and not the sun because the goddess depicted is
Ishtar.

Ishtar is Venus, not a star...

One more:

Sumero-Mesopotamian religion often
grouped the symbols for the sun god with that of the moon god (Akkadian =
Sin; Sumerian = Nanna) and Ishtar (Sumerian = In
ana). This isn’t surprising since they were
so readily viewed. In short, they didn’t
confuse the symbols and neither should we.

These 3 were grouped together often because they're related, Utu and Inanna were Nanna/Sin's children.

 

[Agent327]

The Earth could have formed at the snow line over 4.5 bya and was later pushed here by a collision ~4 bya leaving behind a debris trail circling the sun - the asteroid belt. That would explain why our water and material matches up well with Vesta, both are products of the same collision(s).

No, it wouldn't. First 'snow line' is something you find on alpine mountains. Second, your 'debris trail' (from what exactly?) has now been upgraded to 'asteroid belt'. Last, none of what you're suggesting conforms with what we know about the early solar system.

The late heavy bombardment may be the event that led to plate tectonics ("dry land") and life. As of now the theory is (was) Jupiter prevented a planet forming at the snow line and this resulted in the asteroid belt. Then ~4 bya Jupiter flung a bunch of asteroids around and the planets and their moons took a beating and we got our oceans.

What 'late heave bombardment'? Plate tectonics is something not resulting from an event, but an attribute of the 'dry land', i.e. the continents, moving.

There are problems with this theory, the first being a competing theory called the grand tack. Now some researchers are claiming Jupiter formed very early and was dragged closer and then pulled away by an evolving Saturn. The result was an asteroid bombardment, a smaller Mars, and of course, our water.

Your competing theory doesn't explain asteroid bombardments. (Either that or your explanation makes no sense.)

A problem for both theories is the sequence of planetary formation, how does Jupiter get so big before planets closer to the sun can even form? Especially when the asteroid belt marks the snow line, a planet would form there before Jupiter and deprive Mars of material (well, the solar wind did that too).

Eh, no. Solar wind is something entirely different. Second, Jupiter isn't really that big: beyond Jupiter are the gas giants.

If the Moon swept up the debris trail, how does that mean there was no debris trail? But that was just the main trail orbiting the Earth following the collision, there would have been debris scattered about our orbit too. The debris we do see leads us back to the asteroid belt and beyond.

Illogical. First, a major impact does not leave 'a debris trail'. Second, if the moon is already in existence there would be o need for it to pick up an more debris.

If they had no concept then why should we replace their definitions of Heaven and Earth with our universe? They were talking about Earth's sky and what could be seen, they were not crediting God with the creation of the universe. The submerged Earth and darkness of Gen 1:2 preceded God and his wind and light.

First, the authors of Genesis didn't have definitions. Second, why indeed should we replace their definitions of Heaven and Earth with our universe? This is what you are doing. Third, in Genesis 'the Heavens' isn't just the sky; it's what can be seen when standing on Earth's surface. Last, you're now saying Earth preceded God. That's definitely not in Genesis (either version).

We need to define Heaven and Earth to know if anything preceded God and his creation. Neither of those words means water, in fact both words have very limited meanings - Earth is the dry land that appeared on the 3rd day and Heaven was the firmament placed amidst the water on the 2nd. Which one of those is the universe?

Look up firmament. To ancient Middle Easterners the firmament equals everything you can see looking up while standing on the Earth's surface. In fact, that's basically still its meaning.

The Earth as defined in Genesis is not even this planet, its just the dry land.

Dry land is basically what earth means, isn't it?

 

[timtofly]

When, in the beginning, The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth, The Earth, not yet formed, was in the void, and there was darkness upon Tiamat.
Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and the Lord commanded,
“Let there be lightning!” and there was a bright light.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/genesisrevisto/genrevisit03.htm

According to this website, and the earth's timeline, Abraham lived before Marduk. Marduk carried out a nuclear war in Babylon around 2023 BC, and the Enuma Elis was not compiled until 1500 BC. It cannot be a creation account for the earth, because the earth was formed 4.5 Billion BC. All it can be at the most is Marduk finally doing away with all the former "gods" and proclaiming himself as the chief ruler on earth.

The only point in comparing them is to raise Enuma Elis to the same standard as the Genesis account, when it is not one. What Marduk does in cutting tiamet in half is just bragging about building his throne on earth in Babylon just like the Hebrew El spread out the waters as the Hebrews talked about.

The Sumerian accounts that predate it are closer to the Genesis account and it could be argued that the Hebrews introduced the story or at least both groups had the same story and told it in their own way. It would not seem that any one borrowed from any source, but shared the same experiences within the last 500 years at the most. Abraham would have been down in Egypt when Marduk was fighting the old "gods" and building Babylon. This would have even been after the first Tower to the "gods" that is represented by the Tower of Babel account. The first Tower would have been during the Sumerian Empire between 4000 and 3000 BC around the time of the Epic of Gilgamesh. This still puts the Flood somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 BC.

I did learn something today. The ziggurats were attempts at bridging the "gap" between earth and the "gods". Statutes were supposed to be a physical link between the human and the god it was sanctioned for. What they looked like was not the representation of the god. The main point of the statute was just a link.

Most of the scholarly websites I read seem to indicate that the gods were created by one God. While the Babylonians and others destroyed all the gods including God and made themselves the new gods, the Hebrews insisted that God was still alive and that the other gods were as well.

I guess the Greeks and Romans and to some extent the Egyptians did not get the memo, and continued to accept that there were still gods around. They outlasted the Mesopotamians, so I guess they figured getting rid of one's god may not be a good thing. The Persians and Indo-Europeans who remained went in another direction and looked inward for the god inside.

The final straw was Constantine giving into Christianity and the concept that remained of their being one God in three forms. The Hebrews viewed God in two forms. The Church added the Spirit. It would seem though that the spirit connection would be similar to the way a statue was used. Now it is just affixed to astrology and tarot cards.

IMO though Constantine turning the church into a government, went in the direction of what Babylonians did and made themselves "God" on earth. Thus the error in saying that Peter never went to Babylon, but stayed in the new Babylon (Rome). He actually went to Babylon, and never returned to Rome. It was not the pagans that made Rome the new Babylon, it was not until after Constantine, that it was related in those terms. Probably the same time the new story about Peter dying there to give more credence to the new "ownership" of the church.

 

[Agent327]

There's two minor problems with that narrative. Marduk was a god; Abraham clearly was not. (He wasn't entirely a common man either, but that's not the point.) Constantine wasn't trying to change the church into government (whatever that means), but rather trying to put the church under the state. He did so rather successfully, but the result may not have quite been what he had in mind. I have not come across this idea before, but before Constantine the church was the one religious institute not under the state, as it was not a recognized religion. Given that his prime biographer Eusebius was primarily ecstatic about Constantine's conversion, we can't be certain about his motives, but it might have been one.

 

[Lexicus]

What 'late heave bombardment'?

The Late Heavy Bombardment occurred about 4-3.8 Bya. Huge number of impacts on inner solar system bodies, the evidence is still visible on the Moon and Mercury.

Funnily he was ignoring the existence of the LHB before I pointed out that his attempts to square the science with Genesis left the LHB out.

 

[timtofly]

There's two minor problems with that narrative. Marduk was a god; Abraham clearly was not. (He wasn't entirely a common man either, but that's not the point.) Constantine wasn't trying to change the church into government (whatever that means), but rather trying to put the church under the state. He did so rather successfully, but the result may not have quite been what he had in mind. I have not come across this idea before, but before Constantine the church was the one religious institute not under the state, as it was not a recognized religion. Given that his prime biographer Eusebius was primarily ecstatic about Constantine's conversion, we can't be certain about his motives, but it might have been one.

If one looked at the timeline, that may be assumed. I was trying to be as concise as I could without explaining a ton of detail. I would have to read the Enuma Elis several more times, to "hammer" out all the details.

The common theme in every single Ancient myth that I can tell before it has been interpreted and turned into a religion and in the form it is today has several consistent points:

1. There is still one God who created lesser "gods" more than likely throughout the stars (universe). The basis for alien astronauts. Even Satan and a third of the "stars" rebelling against God. The Babylonians claim that our solar system was the domain of these gods (apsu, tiamet, etc.)

2. Even earth had these gods. they were the created humans. Adam was one (see point 4). The Bible says that the last of them were destroyed in the Flood and never allowed to return. Of course the Babylonians claimed that Marduk and the other gods did survive, and wrote about it during the same time period that the Hebrews were writing that the Flood wiped them out.

That Abraham was a historical person is attested by all 3 of the so-named religions. But even before they actually became religions. They just see him as a normal human with ties to God, and in their genealogies.

3. The council of the "Gods". Here is where the interpretations and accounts start to differ all over the ancient world. Marduk was said to be "birthed" but still a god. The Bible claims that the "sons of God" had offspring with the sons of men. The Greeks and Romans had their Pantheon of gods. All seem to have "left" or even killed off the original God. All seemed to have a human form yet immortal.

It does not make sense that the ancients thought the stars were gods, but there was the thought that gods could transverse the universe, and thus these stars were named after the gods and not the other way around. We even see that in the re-invention of modern heroes whether or not that is intentional or not. Perhaps humans subconsciously are trying to re-connect with their past and hope to once again make some connection with the gods. The ancient accounts could be just fiction, but then you have to ask why the Hebrews were so desperate to "keep things real". Modern scientific realist should be thanking them, not lumping them in with the rest of fictional writers. When one experiences something that perhaps others would never understand, one tries to relate it to reality as much as they can. It seems to me that normalizing something would indicate that it actually happened, not that they were trying to normalize a fictitious account. Fiction writers today at least acknowledge that it is fiction. Can it be proven that the Hebrews did not acknowledge that?

4.What to do with Adam? It has been pointed out by several here, that the creation of a human work force does not fit the narrative of lazy gods, who could transverse the universe. Even in the Enuma Elis the gods themselves made brick and built their own buildings, and adama was an afterthought to maintain the world. The problem with all the accounts except the Bible is that humans had already been living and multiplying on the earth way before the need to create a human workforce. As mentioned, Abraham was already traveling around the middle east while Marduk was allegedly killing the other gods.


tldr

Spoiler :

The Apostle Paul who claims to have been educated as a Hebrew while also in "contact" with Jesus as the unique son of God, claims that Adam was a god who disobeyed God, and brought about the human condition. Only Jesus by obeying God would reverse the punishment, but did not reverse the effect. The way history worked was Jesus died before the destruction of the Temple, and it was proven that it happened in that order and not the other way around. If the Temple had been destroyed first and then the early Christians had re-invented the story, then it would be easier to forget it all as just fiction. The Jews kept on going like nothing happened, and formed Judaism.

As you pointed out, the church was not a religion either for hundreds of years, until Constantine turned the church into a government, or "wed" the church to the state. When the first democratic government which never was controlled by the church, the USA was being formed, it was the Protestants who forced the issue that religion would be left out of it. That has not lasted long, as now the Federal Government seems strongly entrenched in controlling how people live out their religious beliefs.


I could be wrong, but most ancient accounts would fit in with 3 if not all 4 points. Even eastern religions teach that humans can once again reach their "god" state. That is a strongly held belief that even the theory of evolution cannot shake. If taken either literally or figuratively, evolution is the purpose to that end. Of course, all the adherents of ToE want to stress the fact that the point is how it all started, and not where it is going.

I don't think humans will ever completely divorce themselves from religion and form a solely secular state. There seems to be a spiritual component to humans, no matter who thinks they have a handle on the truth, that will never be eradicated, even by evolution. For starters, one cannot eradicate what one even claims does not exist. That is a scientific fact. If one accepts that it does exist, by what means do you get rid of it? Re-create the human brain which seems to be the only connection to the spiritual component? If one could do that, would they not then be a god? At that point their creation would probably wipe them out as that seems to be a trend in history, and the prophesied ending will still happen.

 

[Berzerker]

No, it wouldn't. First 'snow line' is something you find on alpine mountains. Second, your 'debris trail' (from what exactly?) has now been upgraded to 'asteroid belt'.

The snow line refers to the distance from the sun water vapor condensed into ice. The asteroid belt is a debris trail from a collision(s) about 4 bya. If the Earth formed here where is the debris trail leftover from the lunar cataclysm? Yes, the Moon gathered up most of it but we should have left a bunch of rocks in orbit around the sun whereas the ones we do see lead us back to the asteroid belt.

What 'late heave bombardment'? Plate tectonics is something not resulting from an event, but an attribute of the 'dry land', i.e. the continents, moving.

Plate tectonics builds and moves continents and so far the science is telling us the process began during or shortly after the LHB just prior to the appearance of life. We dont know what caused the LHB or what hit the primordial Earth, but it was big enough to plaster one side of the Moon.

Your competing theory doesn't explain asteroid bombardments. (Either that or your explanation makes no sense.)

The grand tack theory isn't mine but researchers are looking for a mechanism to deliver water-laden asteroids to Earth thereby forming its oceans. Once comets were suspect the first mechanism was Jupiter's migration ~4bya into the asteroid belt sending a bunch our way. But then we found out our water was older, the LHB occurred but wasn't necessary for our water.

There are different ways to view the evidence. We see these asteroids and craters and assume the solar system was a mess, but we're looking at the results of the late heavy bombardment. If the Earth had water for close to a 1/2 billion years before the LHB then this world existed in relative calm for a long time after the Moon-forming impact.

Eh, no. Solar wind is something entirely different. Second, Jupiter isn't really that big: beyond Jupiter are the gas giants.

The solar wind depleted the inner solar system of volatile elements, it blew them out to the asteroid belt where they condensed. Thats why researchers dont believe Earth formed here with its water... Jupiter is the biggest planet but I believe it grew larger 4 bya when the collision forming the asteroid belt released material to be swooped up.

Illogical. First, a major impact does not leave 'a debris trail'. Second, if the moon is already in existence there would be o need for it to pick up an more debris.

A major impact created a debris trail for the Moon to gather up to become our Moon.

First, the authors of Genesis didn't have definitions. Second, why indeed should we replace their definitions of Heaven and Earth with our universe? This is what you are doing.

I'm not replacing Heaven and Earth with the universe, I've been arguing this story is not about the universe. And Genesis does define Heaven and Earth, God called them the firmament placed amidst the waters on the 2nd day and the dry land revealed on the 3rd day.

Third, in Genesis 'the Heavens' isn't just the sky; it's what can be seen when standing on Earth's surface. Last, you're now saying Earth preceded God. That's definitely not in Genesis (either version).

The Earth without form and the waters preceded God, Gen 1:2 provides us with the sequence of events. Yes, the heavens became synonymous with the visible sky, but Heaven is not the sky and is unseen.

Look up firmament. To ancient Middle Easterners the firmament equals everything you can see looking up while standing on the Earth's surface. In fact, that's basically still its meaning.

The firmament (raqya) is the middle eastern hammered-out bracelet

Dry land is basically what earth means, isn't it?

Yes... but we define Earth as this planet, not the dry land. Genesis limits its definition of Earth to the dry land that appeared from under the water on the 3rd day.

The Late Heavy Bombardment occurred about 4-3.8 Bya. Huge number of impacts on inner solar system bodies, the evidence is still visible on the Moon and Mercury.

Funnily he was ignoring the existence of the LHB before I pointed out that his attempts to square the science with Genesis left the LHB out.

The 1st time I mentioned the late heavy bombardment in this thread is back on page 5, when did you mention it?

 

[onejayhawk]

Why water laden asteroids and not comets? Are comets too large?

J

 

[Agent327]

The snow line refers to the distance from the sun water vapor condensed into ice. The asteroid belt is a debris trail from a collision(s) about 4 bya. If the Earth formed here where is the debris trail leftover from the lunar cataclysm? Yes, the Moon gathered up most of it but we should have left a bunch of rocks in orbit around the sun whereas the ones we do see lead us back to the asteroid belt.

Snow and ice are not the same thing. You won't find snow in space. Your idea of the asteroid belt being 'a debris trail' is, scientifically speaking, nonsense.

Plate tectonics builds and moves continents and so far the science is telling us the process began during or shortly after the LHB just prior to the appearance of life. We dont know what caused the LHB or what hit the primordial Earth, but it was big enough to plaster one side of the Moon.

That's not really relevant. What we call solid ground basically floats on lower Earth layers. There's little reason why these plates wouldn't move. (And plate tectonics doesn't 'build and move continents', it's what continental movement is.)

The grand tack theory isn't mine but researchers are looking for a mechanism to deliver water-laden asteroids to Earth thereby forming its oceans. Once comets were suspect the first mechanism was Jupiter's migration ~4bya into the asteroid belt sending a bunch our way. But then we found out our water was older, the LHB occurred but wasn't necessary for our water.

The idea that Jupiter travelled to the asteroid belt and then back into its present exact orbit seems rather... far-fetched. To say the least. (If only for the sole reason that all planets seem to be moving in the same plane around the sun.)

The solar wind depleted the inner solar system of volatile elements, it blew them out to the asteroid belt where they condensed. Thats why researchers dont believe Earth formed here with its water...

That would be more accurate than what you first stated.

A major impact created a debris trail for the Moon to gather up to become our Moon.

Circular logic. (You are using 'the moon' to explain why 'the moon' exists. That literally makes no sense.)

I'm not replacing Heaven and Earth with the universe, I've been arguing this story is not about the universe. And Genesis does define Heaven and Earth, God called them the firmament placed amidst the waters on the 2nd day and the dry land revealed on the 3rd day.

And the word firmament means...?

The Earth without form and the waters preceded God, Gen 1:2 provides us with the sequence of events. Yes, the heavens became synonymous with the visible sky, but Heaven is not the sky and is unseen.

'Heaven' is not mentioned in Genesis. 'Heavens' is. And that's not synonymous with 'the sky', but with 'the firmament'. ('The sky', by the way, isn't visible, nor is it mentioned in Genesis. In fact, the sky is completely irrelevant to Genesis.)

The firmament (raqya) is the middle eastern hammered-out bracelet

Firmament is simply another word for 'the heavens', i.e. space. (Your bracelet may also mean firmament, but that's quite irrelevant here.)

Yes... but we define Earth as this planet, not the dry land. Genesis limits its definition of Earth to the dry land that appeared from under the water on the 3rd day.

Not quite. You are ignoring the fact that earth means dry land. The earth is this planet. But the idea of a planet wasn't really known at the time of Genesis.

The common theme in every single Ancient myth that I can tell before it has been interpreted and turned into a religion and in the form it is today has several consistent points:

1. There is still one God who created lesser "gods"

There's no evidence of this in the Bible. There is evidence of rival gods, however. (1st commandment, for example).

That Abraham was a historical person is attested by all 3 of the so-named religions.

You are aware that 2 of those simply follow the first one's narrative? So that's hardly relevant to the question whether Abraham was a historical person. (Not that I mentioned that particular topic.)

It does not make sense that the ancients thought the stars were gods, but there was the thought that gods could transverse the universe, and thus these stars were named after the gods and not the other way around.

There's a lot in in religion today that doesn't make sense, and still plenty of people believe such things.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not sure why introducing ant-people and ancient spacefarers into this story makes it any more credible.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm not sure why introducing ant-people and ancient spacefarers into this story makes it any more credible.

Ancient spacefarers, perhaps not. Bio-seeding is a genuine theory. You might be able to slip a sheet of paper between the two, but probably not.

J

 

[Lexicus]

By bio-seeding, do you mean panspermia?

 

[warpus]

If panspermia is true, which it might be, life would have had to arise somewhere anyway. So from my POV it doesn't really change much.

 

[onejayhawk]

By bio-seeding, do you mean panspermia?

That is just one variant.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Marduk carried out a nuclear war in Babylon around 2023 BC...

So why isn't this in any of the real history books? You'd think that a nuclear war in Babylon would have been noticed and written about by every civilization that had even a slight bit of contact with Babylon. What do real physicists have to say about this claim?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, of course it's nonsense, as such a war would ravage carbon-14 dating after that point. I'm sure that scientists would have spotted that radiogenic mess by now.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Of course, the Babylonians engaging in nuclear war isn't nonsense when you're playing a Civ game. I once got nuked by the Zulus, and when I sent a spy in to check up on the Aztecs, I discovered that they were building nukes. So I bribed the Aztec cities right, left, and center, and then destroyed their capitol.

But we're supposedly talking about the real world here, and the real world does not work like a game of Civilization.