posted September 28, 2002 06:07 PM           

Me too !

posted September 29, 2002 10:20 AM         

But the "gods" you quoted of the Sumerians were Celestial Gods - PLANETS. Their writings are explicit in making that difference. The Gods worshipped by the Sumerians, Egyptians, etc., themselves refered to a Singular One Creator - the GOD of the Gods. The idols and such are only representations of physical gods that were very much a part of their everyday lives.

If one of us were to ride into ancient Egypt in a Toyota, we would be looked upon as Gods.

The Sumerians had various terms that are very peculiar - Celestial Chariots, Whirlwinds, Sky Chambers, Divine Blackbird, and the ever curious BenBen, whose symbol is identical to a rocket. All of these were known as vehicles in which the "gods" roamed about the skies. Why would God need a vehicle?

All of these things are very curious, and very telling, to me.

If I can find the link, I will show you a very curious Egyptian inscription that depicts things that you will recognize as various aircraft.

Or perhaps I should start a new string for this line of thought (and evidence, as I see it) because I feel like I am subverting the nature of this one, and I do not wish to be seen as "bashing" your line of thought.

Anyway, this is all very interesting!

posted September 29, 2002 07:41 PM           

In fact I don't know if this subject it's in the right topic...
When I participated in the topic " Para los que hablan espaņol ",we discussed several subjects, spirituality, interpretation of Kaballah, poetries, astrology,the Bible, Buddhism and any other subject that there was interest.

Unhappily, the topic stopped existing because of the three participants,remains just one...me ...and I don't even speak Spanish, my language is Portuguese.
But this is another thing...

Anyway, Ra, you lifted a quite interesting issue.

There's a passage in the Koran,"sourate"(chapter ?) 17 entitled " The trip at night ", it's written that the Prophet Muhammad ,was transported from Mecca to Jerusalem in the same night, for the " flying " horse.
The old deeds possess terms that are true analogies. I believe that in the difficulty of describing the stranger, the people of that age ,used analogies when they refer to objects that to their eyes, were too complex ,like this they could understand.

I was in Machupicchu and in Nazca ,Peru's desert, about 1 and a half year ago, and what I saw was amazing.

In Cusco, a city 4 hours distant by train from Machupicchu , I could meet the constructions of the Inca's temples and I was fascinated with the technology that they possessed. These temples were built to the "god"sun , "goddess" moon,etc

When the Spaniards invaded Peru, in the colonization, these temples were transformed in churches. The interesting is that a great earthquake, about more or less 100 years ago, dropped all the parts that were increased to the temples when they were transformed in churches, bringing like this the original construction.

In other words, what was put by the Spaniards, fell, what was built by the Incas,continues until today .

When we looked at the stones that they used in the construction of these temples, we can visualize the difference of the Inca construction for the Spanish construction. The stones that were cut by the Incas are perfect in their format and dimension, the ones that were cut by the Spaniards,are " broken " in the tips. The difference jumps to the eyes, mainly to mine .... I am an architect.

But, the most impressive is the desert of Nazca. I select some links that can explain (?!) what is this desert.

By the way, I put two pictures of this trip to Machupicchu in " Know-flakes photo album " http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001059.html

If anyone could take a look ,this is very interesting ...
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/rosalind.htm http://skepdic.com/nazca.html

Jackie

posted September 29, 2002 07:56 PM           

So,I had to break my promise

Jackie

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may be another profound truth."
--Niels Bohr

posted September 30, 2002 10:33 AM         

It is accepted by modern acedemia (including religious) that Genesis is a rendering of the Sumerian/Babylonian Epic of Creation. You speak as if Genesis was written simultaneously by Moses an the Sumerians, but this just is not so. Moses came much later. He was indeed well versed in Egyptian teachings, which are based upon the SUMERIAN. Sumerian existed before the Egyptian. Moses was well aware of this.

Yes, the "facts" written by Moses (if he really was the author) are "the same sometimes" (as you said), but the Mosaic version is much shorter and far less detailed than the originals. There was nothing simultaneous about it.

To clarify some of the Celestial "Gods" you mentioned:

Tiamat - the planet that was smashed by a moon of Niburu, which resulted in the formation of Earth and the asteroid belt.

Apsu - the Sun

Lahmu - Mars

Lahamu - Venus

Anshar - Saturn

Kishar - Jupiter

Anu - Uranus

Gaga - Pluto

Ki - Earth

Kingu - the Moon

Mummu - Mercury

Ea - Neptune

The Sumerians knew of all the planets (Celestial Gods), their order, their orbital durations, their moons, their colors ... everything ... 6,000 years ago.

We "discovered" Pluto in the 1930's. How did they know?

posted September 30, 2002 11:03 AM         

There are MANY carvings/writings to prove this.

posted September 30, 2002 11:15 AM           

And Mary, if you say that God created more than just Adam and Eve, you will have to take other source instead of the Bible to support that idea. The Bible gives a simple, coherent explanation of the facts. It doesnīt mention godsī struggle, for instance. And no one can deny the Bible is the unique book we have available anywhere we are. An easy-to-obtain source of information.

posted September 30, 2002 12:05 PM           

Believe me, I have always enjoyed our conversation; donīt feel bad due to my words. Letīs continue our conversation, I really like it.

posted September 30, 2002 12:21 PM         

Inspired by God, yes. Written by God, no.

I harbour no hate toward the Book, although I do admit, that at one time I did, or rather a dislike towards those who were teaching me things they could not prove and did not understand themselves.

I walked away from the Book, and searched diligently for teachings that could make sense of teachings which my own ministers could not make sense of. In my quest, I returned to the Book with a greater and more clear understanding of the teachings which lie veiled within those ancient texts. I returned to the Book with a renewed respect for those who were presenting the teachings, those wise initiates of old. The truths are there, but they are hidden, veiled, and in these modern times, mangled to a point of non-recognition, unless one is aware of the original intent, which is nearly impossible to ascertain in the current version of the Book.

Believe me, I am ready for any information you can throw at me, conversely, however, I can see that you may not be ready for the truths which I have uncovered for myself. And this is a personal quest, with information I do not want anyone to belive, just because I say it is so. We all must find the truth for ourselves, and all I say must be questioned intensely, frequently, diligently. Do not believe what I say, find it for yourself. I am simply answering with what I know, and this should be looked upon as possibilities only, until you can find it for yourself.

posted September 30, 2002 08:55 PM           

Ra, you say there are many investigators who say Genesis text is coming from older texts, like Sumerian and others. However letīs remember that the most of those men are atheistic. So, they consider that religious beliefs and spiritual inclinations of ancient man simply belong to human nature, the need of a supreme force (or several) to understand and explain the life, the universe and a lot of things they -ancient men- didnīt understand.

As you can see, that concept is far away from your viewpoint; you told me those men knew all the planets of our solar system. So, they were not so ignorant after all. But the researchers donīt believe in supernatural forces. Therefore they are not the best authority to consult in speculations. When I quoted some of them, it was only to support the integrity of the Bible with tangible evidences they offered, not with their hypothesis and suppositions.

Many investigators say the Sumerian text about the creation is the origin of the events of the creation explained in Genesis. Why donīt we compare them. Iīm going to post a resume, then anyone can say what they think about the "similarity":

-Apsu, a god, and Tiamat, a goddess, made other gods;
-Later, Apsu was very angry with those gods and tried to kill them; he couldnīt;
-He was killed by Ea, other god;
-Tiamat tried to kill Ea; she couldnīt;
-Marduk, other god, Eaīs son, won the battle and killed her;
-the gods who had made an alliance with Tiamat were surrounded and held in bondage;
-Marduk divided Tiamatīs body in two halves. One half became the heaven, the other became the earth;
-Later Marduk, helped by Ea, made the humankind with the blood of Kingu, other god.

Thatīs the story (condensed) that inspired the events given by Moses in Genesis 1 and 2 -at least the investigators say that-. But we can see they are speculating. In the same way there are many other examples given by those historians.

Mary, I repeat that youīll have to leave the biblical reasoning to support that idea about the creation of mankind. The Bible is clear when saying it itself is only one book, coherent from beginning to end. If you do not believe this yet, you wonīt understand these Paulīs words: "From ONE man he (God) made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth (Facts 17:26).

If you donīt believe Paul is according to Genesis, you wonīt understand the Bible. Thatīs all I can tell you; youīll have to decide by yourself. Any help you need from me, donīt doubt, ok?

Well, friends, I have to say the same once more: perhaps I wonīt be with you for a few days; I have to meet a lady, Miss Lily Hurricane (just kidding), who is probably coming to my land. Donīt worry, Iīll be careful... and back soon, with Godīs help. Thank you all.

posted October 01, 2002 12:59 PM           

God is with you.

Jakie

posted October 01, 2002 01:04 PM         

Believe it or not, I actually agree with and understand most of your statements. Unfortunately, you have done precisely what we are trying to undo. In your own words, you have "condensed" the story - a huge problem. In doing so, you have omitted a great deal of information, and have bent the facts to your own understanding.

And I will say this again - INSPIRED by God, YES. WRITTEN by God, no.

And you say that "most of those men are atheistic." Really? Do you know them? Some of them are religous leaders.

"...you told me those men new all the planets of our solar system. ... But the researchers don't believe in supernatural forces." Planets are not supernatural forces. I have yet to see the "tangible evidences" that you claim to have offered.

As for the condensed story you wrote to us - it is basically correct, and I agree with your version, mostly. But it only makes sense to me because I know the original. I understand that those Gods are planets, and that those planets were named after important individuals (Gods to the Sumerians). To someone without that knowledge, it appears to be a very confusing story, and makes no sense at all. I can make sense out of each point you made, but this would be fruitless - I have done this before, many times, but to a Fundamental Christian, there is nothing other than Genesis - no other versions, no other interpretations. I think I shall not repeat myself again.

You DO NOT "have to leave the biblical reasoning to support that idea about the creation of mankind." "That idea" and "the biblical reasoning" are one and the same. The only reasoning that must be left is the modern, fundamental Christian reasoning, which is actually an oxymoron, because there is no reasoning to this type of Christianity, there is only blind following.

You said it yourself - "Any help you need from me, don't doubt, ok?"

I say the opposite - do not believe anything I say, for it is only my truth and that which I have discovered for myself. Doubt always the teachings! If the teaching/information is true, it will stand on its own. If it feels right, if it strikes a chord, if it answers questions, then perhaps you may believe it. Otherwise, do not believe it just because it is said, no matter who says it! This is the ONLY way to ascertain the truth about anything!

Seek and ye shall find.

I did not intend for this to turn into a sermon, and I truly do appreciate the perspective from which Bases Loaded is coming. But I have beat my head against this wall before, and it would be wise for me to discontinue my thoughts on this in this string.

Bases Loaded, I do respect your position, and I will gladly bow out of this discussion that was originally intended for you in the first place. Please do not take my rant in the wrong way. You are needed here. Peace?

posted October 01, 2002 03:42 PM           

Ra, please, I have to tell you that Iīm a Christian, only that, no adjetive. Fundamental is not for me; I reject that.

About those religious leaders, some times they are the most atheistic, and their behaviors are the best prove.

The tangible evidences are the ancient manuscripts the archaelogists have found to confirm the integrity of the actual Bible. You canīt deny those are clear, available evidences. The matter then was the "changes" the Book had suffered during the copies for many centuries. But everyday those statements are falling down more and more.

Now, how can they or you prove that Moses did use the Sumerian books to write Genesis? Only with hypothesis. Itīs better for us to accept the simple idea mentioned and repeated by me before: they simply tell the same facts; thereīs no visible direct conection between those sources.

Iīm sure you know that every ancient civilization has its own version of the events described in Genesis; creation of the earth and the man, the flood, Cain and Abel, tower of Babel and the different languages, etc. Are we obligated to believe that Moses just copied those versions? Iīm thinking you say he copied from the Sumerians because that is the text you are related with.

If we all remembered that the Bible is only one book, with a principal theme, starting (that theme) in Genesis 3:4 and finishing in Revelation 22:17, we would be able to understand why the Book is avilable (Iīve said this many times) for more than 98 % of mankind, in more than 2 000 languages...
Itīs important we hear these Jesusī words as sounding in our ears: "you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed... or only one" (Luke 10:41,42). Yes!, the Bible is realy simple, and easy to understand. We only need to develope the desire to find the treasure our Creator wants to give us after the earthīs cleaning, "For the upright will live in the land (not the heaven), and the blameless will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it" (Proverbs 2:21,22).

And Iīve always invited you all to consider the evidences before believing anything. You have misunderstood my words. Now stay with us and keep sharing your viwpoints and knowledge with us, ok? Nor you, nor me like to close the door in front of the knowledge.