The world in upheaval 3000 B.C.E

a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

The ancient 'aliens' haven't being debunked thus far so i dont mind the term and i found this thread very interesting.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: 6Taco6Smell6

The ancient 'aliens' haven't being debunked thus far so i dont mind the term and i found this thread very interesting.

You mean haven't been debunked to your satisfaction. There's a whole website:
ancientaliensdebunked.com...

originally posted by: Ridhya
They believed that the sky was a solid dome held up by a 'range of mountains that ring the earth' and its surrounding sea. Consider also the Babylonian mathematical texts which claim that it is "19 miles from the Moon to the Pleiades" and so on.

I doesn't sound like you are right about the King's list in my opinion. The dates don't add up at all.

In what tablet claims the Sumerians believed the sky was held up by mountains? It doesn't matter anyway, they still said "come down from the sky."

originally posted by: greyer

In what tablet claims the Sumerians believed the sky was held up by mountains? It doesn't matter anyway, they still said "come down from the sky."

To use your own question, what tablet states "they came down from the sky"?

Link and quote, please, or admit you're imagining it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
To use your own question, what tablet states "they came down from the sky"?

Link and quote, please, or admit you're imagining it.

Harte

Thanks Harte you gave me an easy one, I was expecting something tough.

The Sumerian Kings tablet believed to be written circa 2119 BC, about 4,000 years ago, was found in Larsa, Iraq and is being held at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England. It mentions the flood story in much more detail than any other. Both before and after the flood, the kings had 'descended from heaven,' our translation ' came down from the sky.' The word An. I don't think it can get more clear, that a being from the sky came down and ruled over humans, because also ancient Egypt claims with everything that the first kings were full on gods, then later the kings were half god and half human. That is why their first kings ruled for 1,000s of year also.

As I said this gives an answer for why people came up with fish-men, bird-men, reptilians, goat-men, and worshiped them. The accounts were that they shape shifted. So we are talking about upheaval, imagine men running around with the head of a cow who were giants. King Nimrod was said that he could shape shift into a cow or into a snake, but most of the time his whole body was glowing like a UFO, and the people said he wore the 'clothes of Adam.'

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: Harte

To use your own question, what tablet states "they came down from the sky"?



Link and quote, please, or admit you're imagining it.



Harte

Thanks Harte you gave me an easy one, I was expecting something tough.



The Sumerian Kings tablet believed to be written circa 2119 BC, about 4,000 years ago, was found in Larsa, Iraq and is being held at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England. It mentions the flood story in much more detail than any other. Both before and after the flood, the kings had 'descended from heaven,' our translation ' came down from the sky.' The word An. I don't think it can get more clear, that a being from the sky came down and ruled over humans, because also ancient Egypt claims with everything that the first kings were full on gods, then later the kings were half god and half human. That is why their first kings ruled for 1,000s of year also.



As I said this gives an answer for why people came up with fish-men, bird-men, reptilians, goat-men, and worshiped them. The accounts were that they shape shifted. So we are talking about upheaval, imagine men running around with the head of a cow who were giants. King Nimrod was said that he could shape shift into a cow or into a snake, but most of the time his whole body was glowing like a UFO, and the people said he wore the 'clothes of Adam.'

Again, quote and link, please.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Why would you need a link and quote to believe the Sumerian Kings tablet is real and located at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England?

Fine I am a liar.

In fact all the nonsense makes me run away from it. I am in no way going to believe anymore. In fact Sitchin can be believed as far as I'm concerned. It's just too stupid, too many contradictions, to much skepticism over innocence, it reminds me of evil. These people talking about liars are pitiful attempting to obscure reality by passing wrong judgments, being egotistical apathetic jerks, and coming up with irrational and moronic arguments that mimic the sound of dreams and fairy tales.

double post by accident.

originally posted by: greyer
a reply to: Harte



Why would you need a link and quote to believe the Sumerian Kings tablet is real and located at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England?



Fine I am a liar.

You certainly are if you're saying that I questioned the reality of any particular king's list.
Here's your statement I responded to:

originally posted by: greyer
In what tablet claims the Sumerians believed the sky was held up by mountains? It doesn't matter anyway, they still said "come down from the sky."

I don't see a king's list mentioned there.



Harte

originally posted by: Harte


I don't see a king's list mentioned there.



Harte

There are over 18 different King's list and they all say different things (in addition to the list). The one I am talking about supposedly is the main 'Weld-Blundell Prism' with a vertical hole through its central axis and four sides to it.

Here is the original answer.

www.noahs-ark.tv...

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu

On another website they claim this, of course it was possible to have more than one meaning for a word - just like we do. Well in the context of the King's list, we know they are talking about the sky.

An is the sky, na is come down, and ki is ground. Anunnaki means "those who came down from the sky."

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: Harte


I don't see a king's list mentioned there.



Harte

There are over 18 different King's list and they all say different things (in addition to the list). The one I am talking about supposedly is the main 'Weld-Blundell Prism' with a vertical hole through its central axis and four sides to it.

Here is the original answer.

www.noahs-ark.tv...

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu

On another website they claim this, of course it was possible to have more than one meaning for a word - just like we do. Well in the context of the King's list, we know they are talking about the sky.

An is the sky, na is come down, and ki is ground. Anunnaki means "those who came down from the sky."

At last.

The line you refer to:

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years.

Source:etcsl
There is a more reasonable and logical explanation than you've stated for this line. It's Divine right.

Note that "the kingship" descended from Heaven, not the king.

What makes a king a king, after all?

Besides, are you prepared to provide any support for the idea of Alulim as one of the gods of heaven? An old claim was made at one time that he was Adam, as well as Adapa or another apkallu.

That was a dead end then as now.

On the other hand, can you see that some sort of divinity has to be involved (mythologically, of course) for a king and his descendants to claim any right to rule?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
What makes a king a king, after all?

Besides, are you prepared to provide any support for the idea of Alulim as one of the gods of heaven? An old claim was made at one time that he was Adam, as well as Adapa or another apkallu.

Yes, there is large support. It weighs over 1,000 tons. There are 5 of them. 3 of them were raised on a platform of multiple units weighing 600-800 tons. Man today Can Not Do This With Anything.



This is real. The Romans did not record it. They would have recorded it. The people of the area through oral tradition say it was built by the first humans. That would mean all the way back to these people you call Kings and I call Annunaki. First of all the Sumerians created what we call a year, we cannot say they are miscalculating the past when we are living by their calculation. If you read everything, which I'm sure you have read most, they way they talk about these gods creating man correlate with the way they talk about them being in the sky. And they also refer to them more like beings than what mainstream people say - an idea like the ocean or mountains.

When it is claimed that these mysterious things happened, and we have physical evidence, then we should be open minded.

On the other hand, can you see that some sort of divinity has to be involved (mythologically, of course) for a king and his descendants to claim any right to rule?

Harte

No because if you ask a professional they say that first the ancients believed their kings were fully divine and then in their present tense history they thought the kings were half divine. That would mean that they acknowledged the divinity in those before them, who they tried to replicate and it is easy to see they were obsessed with creating those replications very large. Might I point out those smaller statues in front look just like the Annunaki replications from before Sumer.

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: Harte
What makes a king a king, after all?

Besides, are you prepared to provide any support for the idea of Alulim as one of the gods of heaven? An old claim was made at one time that he was Adam, as well as Adapa or another apkallu.

Yes, there is large support. It weighs over 1,000 tons. There are 5 of them. 3 of them were raised on a platform of multiple units weighing 600-800 tons. Man today Can Not Do This With Anything.

I believe I already told you that none of the three stones in question had to be lifted at all. They were dragged into place from a quarry that is at a higher elevation.

Besides, even if they came from a lower elevation quarry, they wouldn't have been lifted then either. They would have been dragged uphill beyond the target spot then dragged down into place.

Dragging is not lifting.

Also, at this very moment there exist hundreds of cranes in the world that can lift far more than 1,000 tons, and none of the stones in the Trilithon weigh more than around 800 tons.
Not that it matters, other than to demostrate that you are oblivious to reality. It's obvious that the Romans didn't have electric cranes, after all.

Similar-sized stones were placed by the Romans in Jerusalem around the same time. Those were written about. Not every scrap that was written during the Roman Empire survives, you know. The large majority, in fact, is lost.

It's been pointed out that there is a rather in-depth thread concerning Baalbek here at ATS wherein these issues are addressed. Your avoidance of the information freely available in that thread is quite telling.

originally posted by: greyerThis is real. The Romans did not record it. They would have recorded it. The people of the area through oral tradition say it was built by the first humans. That would mean all the way back to these people you call Kings and I call Annunaki.

Bolded above is another one of your unsupported claims. Link and quote from a reasonably respected journal or you're making it up.

originally posted by: greyer First of all the Sumerians created what we call a year, we cannot say they are miscalculating the past when we are living by their calculation. If you read everything, which I'm sure you have read most, they way they talk about these gods creating man correlate with the way they talk about them being in the sky. And they also refer to them more like beings than what mainstream people say - an idea like the ocean or mountains.

You equate mythology with reality. I call this sort of person "mythillogical."

Are you prepared to state that the Earth's rotation was stopped in it's tracks at one point, then restarted? You know, that's in the mythology as well.

Do you believe that if you wear a cotton-polyester blend shirt, that you should be put to death? Again, in the mythology.

Did your Mom dip you by one heel into the river Styx? Can a person actually fly by making wings from feathers and beeswax and flapping them?

Is it possible to fly in the atmosphere too close to the Sun? Can a swan impregnate a human?
Crossing most of a continent, can a person convince a mountain to lie down and get out of their way?

originally posted by: greyer

On the other hand, can you see that some sort of divinity has to be involved (mythologically, of course) for a king and his descendants to claim any right to rule?

Harte

No because if you ask a professional they say that first the ancients believed their kings were fully divine and then in their present tense history they thought the kings were half divine.

Yet we find the dead bodies of these divine kings all the time and they didn't live to any remarkable age and are quite human. What we don't find is bodies of dead alien kings.

originally posted by: greyerThat would mean that they acknowledged the divinity in those before them, who they tried to replicate

No, it means they had to have a justification that their subjects could at least partially accept for their right to rule, and that's all it means.

originally posted by: greyerand it is easy to see they were obsessed with creating those replications very large. Might I point out those smaller statues in front look just like the Annunaki replications from before Sumer.

There exist no images of the Anunnaki ever found, unless you want to count a couple of images of the main characters, like Inanna, Enki and Enlil.

Your pic shows the typical Egyptian style and resembles nothing at all from Sumer or before.

Harte