Was it actually a Hyena in this early Sumerian Proverb?

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Obviously, there is a lot more reading you need to do for basic background before you can even grok what I have recommended as shortcut. Here's a shortlist:

The Origins of the World's Mythologies by Witzel
Plato: PreHistorian by Settegast
When Zarathustra Spoke by Settegast
The Ancient Near East by Liverani (super excellent)
History of the Ancient Near East by van de Mieroop
Philosophy Before the Greeks van de Mieroop
From Hittite to Homer by Bachvarova
The History of Ancient Palestine by Ahlstrom
The Origins of Biblical Israel by Davies
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Early History of the Israelite People by T. L. Thompson
The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand
Prologue to History by John van Seters
In Search of History by John van Seters
The Life of Moses by John van Seters
Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History by T. L. Thompson
The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestine's History by Keith Whitelam

Each of these books can lead to at least three others that are must reads, usually more.

I have hundreds of books on the topic that I have read and analyzed, and close to a thousand papers, more or less. I have neither the time nor the energy to review everything that is known on the subject(s) when you could exert some effort of your own to obtain that knowledge.

Despite the fact that you can translate an ancient language, your position on the history, archaelogy, etc, is that of an extreme newbie to the topic. If you can get some serious reading under your belt, we might discuss the topic and find some interesting things. At present, there is no common ground for discourse, so I will say nothing further.
 

JimDuyer

The Force is Strong With This One
Let me know if you change your mind. Only by re-translating the errors of authors who use erroneous information from 19th century translators with an agenda can we arrive at the truth.

Your list above is replete with those who wish to show that white Greeks were smarter than dark Sumerians and Babylonians. And that the Bible history is the only history we need. They were works authored and formed by agendas, one and all.

And by their doing this it tells me that our knowledge of these ancient people is currently in error. They were much more intelligent and connected than any would imagine, and their history was later adulterated by the Akkadians, and Amorites, and Hurrians who could not understand the earliest writings but came up with "their answer" anyway. Much like us if we found writings on Mars - we would have no idea but our science wizards would come up with some answer anyway.

Sumerians revered women, loaned money without interest as friends, had a law with fines and other punishments. When the barbarians listed above brought the civilization down, they made women second class citizens, took away their vote, brought in high interest on loans, instituted the eye for and eye cruelties for punishment that we later see in the Old Testament, and then changed the female goddesses into male gods. Actually I believe Jesus was sent mainly to correct this "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" crap by instituting his turn the other cheek idea, which was later adulterated and here we are.

So to look to them for the source materials that your above authors use in their works (and I have read a few of them that you mention) is a work of folly and will not advance the truth in any way.

Sitchin and others used Akkadian (a Semitic language since he was Hebrew himself, which is Semitic), which was authored by a group of fools floundering around and trying to glean meanings from something that they did not understand, which was the Sumerian culture. He could have taken the time to learn Sumerian, but since his background was Semitic Hebrew he did not bother. Because he wished to invent his own ideas, and by using the real language it would have given away his game. And with Sumerian he would have had to show his work more.

His "translations" that he claims means "rockets" and "Nibiru", and many other of his inventions, do not exist in the Sumerian originals and never have. None of the work done by the Akkadians is original as all of it represents their "guesses" and "inventions" of the original Sumerian texts that they barely understood.

If I had come across a word, previously not understood or miss-translated, and I found that it meant rockets, or Nibiru, etc., I would be sure to document it, show how I arrived at it, show examples of it used in this way, allowed other scholars to comment and expand upon it, or to disprove it if they could. I would not simply publish and claim diplomatic immunity due to race, as he seems to have done. That's not scholarship, that's fiction.

Sure they knew some of the words of commerce, but they never understood the parts that were meant for the initiated and those who were culturally aware. That's why he never, in any of his books, showed his sources or proved his work. Because he could not do it. This hurts us all now, because people who try to bring out the truth must fight the negative reactions from those who know that Sitchin lied about nearly every single translation he did. It's so very easy to prove this that it is insulting for people that actually know what they are doing to even read his work.

The powers that be loved him, and promoted his works for free. Why? Because it takes the rest of us even further from the truth, which is something that the powerful do not ever wish us to know. They don't want us to know that there is clear evidence that extraterrestrials were among the early Sumerians and taught them much of what they knew. And perhaps created mixed species of alien hybrids while they were here. That's the part that they wish to be supplanted by Sitchin and those like him.

The only reason he was not shut up by the traditional scholars is because it would have seemed to be Anti-Semitic. Which is a joke, because it was the Semitic groups that brought down Sumer and corrupted their teachings. At that time (of Sitchin) in our history the shared guilt of the second world war was still upon us. And like Einstein he got a lot of "passes", instead of thinkers who would question "what the hell is this mess?"

So yes, I will also leave it at the above. I wish you the best of luck in your journey of discovery.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Let me know if you change your mind. Only by re-translating the errors of authors who use erroneous information from 19th century translators with an agenda can we arrive at the truth.

That's irrelevant to what I am trying to convey.

Your list above is replete with those who wish to show that white Greeks were smarter than dark Sumerians and Babylonians. And that the Bible history is the only history we need. They were works authored and formed by agendas, one and all.

Wrong.

All the rest of what you wrote just displays abyssal ignorance of the history/archaeology.
 

JimDuyer

The Force is Strong With This One
That's irrelevant to what I am trying to convey.



Wrong.

All the rest of what you wrote just displays abyssal ignorance of the history/archaeology.
OH, sort of like the Shaolin Monk challenge, where I need to beat up 20 guys at the same time before I can compete with the higher ups?

OK

1. on your list: Michael Witzel reconstructs a single original African source for our collective myths, dating back some 100,000 years. Identifying features shared by this "Out of Africa" mythology.
And no, I do not follow the Out of Africa theory, and neither do quite a few modern scholars. It has been disproven in peer-reviewed articles many times in the last 10 years.

2. Plato wrote of two ancient civilizations that flourished more than 9000 years before his time. And I agree that there was more than one that flourished even earlier than that. I've read him.

3. When Zarathustra Spoke by Settegast. Zarathustra was an Iranian-Iraqui religion from a time after the Sumerians. By the way, don't fall for the line that the Sumerians began writing in 4000 BC, because I have on my desktop symbols written that have been dated to 7500BC and the symbols on the sides of Gobekli Tepi, from much earlier, are in Sumerian as well, and I have translated them as well. What many do not know is that the Zarathustra influenced fire-bird, represented by markings made in the stones of Neolithic Iran, was later adopted for the Jewish Menorah, just as the star symbol of ancient Sumeria was adopted later by the Israelites.

4. The Ancient Near East by Liverani (super excellent). Yes, this is a good scholarly work, but it is not on the topic that I brought up - Sumerian translations, and erroneously translated proverbs.

5. Philosophy Before the Greeks van de Mieroop. Again, this is on Babylonaian (which was Amorite controlled and populated) philosophers, who rewrote what they thought they understood of the Sumerians, but did not. "The problem is that the title makes it sound like the Babylonians did something like Greek philosophy that influenced the Greeks, and the author doesn't even *try* to establish this. (that last is from a comment on his book)." I saw an interesting page from an Egyptian who claims that van de Mieroop is a white Dutch guy who knows nothing about the Egyptian culture or people and is basically writing from a white European point of view. Huh.

6. From Hittite to Homer by Bachvarova. YES. This one proves my points above, exactly. From its blurb: "This book provides a groundbreaking reassessment of the prehistory of Homeric epic. It argues that in the Early Iron Age bilingual poets transmitted to the Greeks a set of narrative traditions closely related to the one found at Bronze-Age Hattusa, the Hittite capital." And the Hittites stole from the Hurrians and Hurri and Hatti, who were much earlier, and then the Hurrians went to work as Sumerian scribes and then as the tribe of Abraham joined the fierce Amorites and conquered Canaan.

7. The History of Ancient Palestine by Ahlstrom. Although dated this is an excellent one volume history of the ancient Levant. Which he calls Palestine to some degree, and is the land as it was BEFORE the Amorites under Abraham arrived. Good book, and nothing to do with the Sumerian writings that I posted about. Also way too late in the timeline.

8. The Origins of Biblical Israel by Davies. His own, solicited Review states: "Suffice it to say that Davies' hypothesis will undoubtedly stand as one of the principal proposals for solving the puzzling Israel=Judah terminological equation...He has demonstrated convincingly that ''Israel' in the Hebrew Bible is not a historical community but an identity claimed by several communities' ". I agree that the word Israel was a self-proclaimed accomplishment and not perhaps a legal institution. I do translate paleo-Hebrew so I am quite familiar with the Judeans and the differences between them and the Israelites, culturally and politically speaking. Jesus' birthplace in the territory of Judah was considered at the time as a sort of country bumpkin area by the more sophisticated people of Jerusalem.
Davies is closely associated with the movement known as The Copenhagen School (other figures include Niels Peter Lemche, Keith Whitelam, and Thomas L. Thompson), a loosely knit group of scholars who hold that the Bible's version of history is not supported by any archaeological evidence so far unearthed, indeed undermined by it, and that it therefore cannot be trusted as history. But I believe that I already mentioned that the Bible is not history in my post above.

9. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It doubts the veracity of the bible. As I mentioned above, I do as well. I've read all three of the works.

10. Early History of the Israelite People by T. L. Thompson. "Thompson argues that none of the traditional models for the origin of biblical Israel in terms of conquest, peaceful settlement, or revolution are viable. The indigenous nature of the Israelite people has roots that lead back to the late Neolithic period." I agree with the Neolithic period roots, but those roots are in Syria and not in Canaan. Sure they mixed with the locals, to some degree, but the leaders did not. When Abraham needed sons for Lot and others needed new blood for sons they turned to Haran, in Syria to get them. They went back to their roots in the Hurrian controlled lands bordering on Turkey that were very associated with the Amorite neighbors and the Assyrians as well.

11. The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand. He posits that modern Jews are largely descended from converts and the Jews of the Bible remained in the Middle East and eventually became the modern Palestinians. I would go further and state that most modern Jews are Ashkenazi converts from the Ukraine region originally. But nothing to do with my post. It's funny that all of these Jewish authors you mention are so willing to slander (but it's not really slander because it's the truth) their own people for money. But a buck is a buck.

12. Prologue to History by John van Seters. In this fascinating study, John Van Seters makes a compelling case for a new reading of Genesis. Which is what I did when I gave you the "eth", meaning "as it was written in Cuneiform" from Genesis, which was left out of our Bibles. Please see my mention of that above.

13. In Search of History by John van Seters. John van Seters again shows that the Bible was not historical. As I stated.

14. The Life of Moses by John van Seters. He proposes that the Yahwist (J) wrote most of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers during the Babylonian exile and that there was no Elohist (E). It seems that he believes that much of the text comes from the imagination of J, expanding on Deuteronomy, which had already been written down before the Babylonian exile. Possibly. It's against what traditional scholars claim but to me it really makes no difference which of the three or more groups wrote which portion, and when. Did you know that the word "Enki" is found in the Old Testament some 306 times, most frequently in pleas of "Enki save us?" Yes, it is. From the Yahwist scholar group of authors, one of my favorites.

Since you asked me to read three books by van Seters, here's one of his theories: "Van Seters’s doctoral dissertation was on the problem of the Hyksos (Yale, 1965), and published as The Hyksos: A New Investigation (1966). It challenged the consensus view about these foreign rulers of Egypt in the mid-second millennium BCE on a number of points. On the matter of their origins, they were not Hurrians from northern Syria and Anatolia, they did not invade Egypt with chariots and horses and their capital city of Avaris was not to be located in the vicinity of Tanis. Instead, these foreigners came from southern Palestine, migrating into the eastern Delta during a period of political decentralization in the Second Intermediate period and eventually established the capital of their kingdom, Avaris, at Tell ed-Dab‘a. " Yes, as many scholars are now aware (myself included) the Hyksos were Hebrews or actually their Amorite/Hurrian mixture prior to the establishment of Israel. I did mention that the Amorites were fierce, and took Assyria, Sumeria and beat up the Akkadians, right?

15. Biblical Narrative and Palestine's History by T. L. Thompson. "The essays employ comparative and formalistic techniques to illuminate the allegorical and mythical in Old Testament narrative traditions from Genesis to Nehemiah." Yes, much of the Bible is allegorical and mythical, but the myth part was copied from Sumerian texts which they helped to translate in the time of Abraham as Hurrian scholars, as I mentioned above.

16. The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestine's History by Keith Whitelam. Keith W. Whitelam argues that ancient Israel has been invented by scholars in the image of a European nation state. He explores the theological and political assumptions which have shaped research into ancient Israel by Biblical scholars, and contributed to the vast network of scholarship which Said identified as 'Orientalist discourse'. I'm surprised at this one because it absolutely agrees with my comment that the Greeks placed their framework over ancient Babylonian texts, and structured the Biblical narrative by influencing the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek for their readers. This is exactly what I mentioned above.

Yes, there are hundreds more, and hundreds that you did not include, many of which I have read. But here's the thing. I don't like to read the same themes over and over. When you dwell on falsehoods it begins to dull your mind, and eventually pollutes it.

They have no idea of the origin and true history, and so they endlessly speculate, argue about punctuation or missing verbs, discuss whether a hair is wider than a thumbnail, and spin the traditional history that we are being spoon fed.

What I was trying to do is to bring out the fact that we need to start at the beginning, learn the truth about the ones that started this whole thing, and not rely on translations of plagiarized texts from the Babylonians or Hebrews, with such translations being done by people who have no idea of what they are speaking of.

Esoteric knowledge does not come easily. You need to work hard to extract it. I was simply trying to offer my own version of what I have discovered after fifteen years of research, and no offense was meant.

Have you read the Gods of Eden by Bramley?
 

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi JimDuyer

There is a theme that runs through a lot of myths about those who set out on a quest for something. Barriers and obstacles, tricks, seductions, distractions all lay in wait for the sincere seeker.

Like the alchemist who makes fools gold and thinks they completed the great work, you have fallen prey to self-love and now your quest for knowledge has been subordinated to your quest for admiration.

I’m quite sure if you look back to years gone by, you’ll remember the time when learning new things was your passion. And I’m also sure that if you wanted to, you could see a point in time where there was a shift inside you, and that passion for knowledge subtly turned into a desire to be admired for what you had learned so far. I think recognising that shift in yourself is the key to realising that the learning process never ends, and you may leave the plateau where you have been resting and head out to approach the next stage of the ascent.

From the way you’ve formulated many responses to other posts, I don’t expect that you’re going to take my words seriously. But I’m putting them out here anyway, because if they’re of no use to you right now, they may be one day in the future.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ou need to work hard to extract it. I was simply trying to offer my own version of what I have discovered after fifteen years of research, and no offense was meant.

Have you read the Gods of Eden by Bramley?
She did and she has written about it:


A number of years ago I came across an interesting book entitled: The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley. I picked it up and read the blurbs on the front and back and inside covers. The back of the book claims:

The Origins of the World's Mythologies by Witzel
Plato: PreHistorian by Settegast
When Zarathustra Spoke by Settegast

Jim Duyer, I've only read the first 3 books in Laura's recommended list for you and I also read the draft of her yet to be published book. I don't think many get to get a glimpse of the astounding amount of work involved in Laura's writings and recommendations. Try to ease up on the "Right Man Syndrome" and use the search function on this forum. We have dedicated threads and discussions of all these topics.
 

JimDuyer

The Force is Strong With This One
She did and she has written about it:






Jim Duyer, I've only read the first 3 books in Laura's recommended list for you and I also read the draft of her yet to be published book. I don't think many get to get a glimpse of the astounding amount of work involved in Laura's writings and recommendations. Try to ease up on the "Right Man Syndrome" and use the search function on this forum. We have dedicated threads and discussions of all these topics.
Will do, thanks.
 

JimDuyer

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi JimDuyer

There is a theme that runs through a lot of myths about those who set out on a quest for something. Barriers and obstacles, tricks, seductions, distractions all lay in wait for the sincere seeker.

Like the alchemist who makes fools gold and thinks they completed the great work, you have fallen prey to self-love and now your quest for knowledge has been subordinated to your quest for admiration.

I’m quite sure if you look back to years gone by, you’ll remember the time when learning new things was your passion. And I’m also sure that if you wanted to, you could see a point in time where there was a shift inside you, and that passion for knowledge subtly turned into a desire to be admired for what you had learned so far. I think recognising that shift in yourself is the key to realising that the learning process never ends, and you may leave the plateau where you have been resting and head out to approach the next stage of the ascent.

From the way you’ve formulated many responses to other posts, I don’t expect that you’re going to take my words seriously. But I’m putting them out here anyway, because if they’re of no use to you right now, they may be one day in the future.
Kind words, thank you.
 

JimDuyer

The Force is Strong With This One
Will do, thanks.
OK, I read your suggested article. Interesting. Here's a question that pops up right away, however, and since you asked me to read the article, perhaps you could answer it?

YHWH, the early Hebrew consonants that we modernly pronounce Yahweh, was translated differently in the King James Version of the Old Testament. By that time the European influence on Judaism had brought forth a different way of pronouncing the unspeakable name (according to custom they were not to speak it aloud), such that Yahweh became Jahweh, with the Y changed for a J, and this was under the influence of the Yiddish groups in Europe, and this was later modernized yet again to Jehovah. It's fairly well documented by accredited scholars. In fact the word Jehovah is a Latinization of a form of Yahweh or Yahowa, as the YHWH was at that time used.

Here's what I read on Wakipedia: Jehovah was first introduced by William Tyndale in his translation of Exodus 6:3, and appears in some other early English translations including the Geneva Bible and the King James Version.[3] The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states that in order to pronounce the Tetragrammaton "it is necessary to introduce vowels that alter the written and spoken forms of the name (i.e. "Yahweh" or "Jehovah")

Does anyone doubt what I am saying here? Do any of you think that Jehovah does not mean
Yahweh, and that they are indeed one and the same entities with simply different ways of pronunciation, leading to different spellings? I you wish to claim "You are wrong" and not offer evidence to prove that, as Laura did to me above, then let me know and I will provide it. But I think those that remember Sunday School will back me up on this. Even if it was long ago.

But if you do doubt my statement, I would be happy to furnish the etymological evidence for this. But I really believe that you are aware of this truth. So I won't bother explaining this further here.

But could you do me a favor? Would someone please let the Cassiopeans in on this? Because in your article that you asked me to read, it's obvious that they think the two are different entities:

Q: Who was Jehovah?
A: Lizard projection.

Q: (L) Who was Yahweh.
A: Fictional being.

Please let them know that they were one and the same, and not one being a Lizard projection and the other a Fictional Being. I would expect an answer of Jehovah was a lizard protection and fictional being, or Yahweh was also known as Jehovah, a fictional lizard projection. Especially since the two questions were asked one after the other, at least according to the page you asked me to read.

Perhaps we can teach them something while they are teaching the questioners?

It really is all about what we read, correct? So thanks for your suggestion.
 

Soluna

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I am definitely not qualified or knowledgeable in this area, despite finding it a fascinating subject and read - but even I am aware that you should not take the transcripts at face value or 'as read'. It has been said that expectations or preconceptions on the receiving end can influence answers, and the 'experiment' is a journey of learning, discovery and discernment amongst others.

It seems a bit nit picky to focus on that tiny part of an interesting article, especially when you're being encouraged to explore the wealth of knowledge already available (even if much of it is incorrect from the drawing board as you seem to be suggesting regarding initial translations).
 

rs

Dagobah Resident
But could you do me a favor? Would someone please let the Cassiopeans in on this? Because in your article that you asked me to read, it's obvious that they think the two are different entities:

Q: Who was Jehovah?
A: Lizard projection.

Q: (L) Who was Yahweh.
A: Fictional being.

Please let them know that they were one and the same, and not one being a Lizard projection and the other a Fictional Being. I would expect an answer of Jehovah was a lizard protection and fictional being, or Yahweh was also known as Jehovah, a fictional lizard projection. Especially since the two questions were asked one after the other, at least according to the page you asked me to read.

Perhaps we can teach them something while they are teaching the questioners?

It really is all about what we read, correct? So thanks for your suggestion.
I have been following this site almost since the beginning when it was created with a text editor and HTML tags. I have noticed two things.

1) The Cassiopeans often answer the same (basic) question in different ways. I have concluded the reason for this is that channeled work is always colored by the channeler. There is filtering going on and the ideas being communicated are *not* communicated perfectly, sometimes with considerable distortion. The means (i.e. people involved) for the channeling has changed over time so therefore has the filtering. The answers that Jehovah is a lizard projection and Yahweh is a fictional being are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily contradictory. Both can be true at the same time. I have noticed the Cassiopeans tend to answer only the question being asked. I do not know for sure but suspect Laura, et. al. never asked the question "are Jehovah and Yahweh the same (entity)?" or "is the Jehovah/Yahweh entity a fictional projection of the lizard beings?"

2) Laura is an absolutely prodigious reader. When she says she has hundreds of books, I believe her and I believe she has read them all. She has an incredible ability to synthesize material from a wide variety of sources. Is she always correct? no, of course not. But after reading this material for nearly 30 years, I have learned to accept possibilities. Many of her conclusions are startling at first, but often 10 years later the lightbulb lights in my head and I say to myself "Oh, that is what she was talking about."

It seems like you have wandered into a bar and are arguing with the bartender about the brands of beers they serve. Perhaps you can relax and just have a cold one.

I have no doubt about your capabilities and background. You are clearly an intelligent and capable man. I would just kindly suggest you dial it back just a bit...
 

Luks

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I will share all the examples of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" in the sessions:
Q: (L) Who was Yahweh.
A: Fictional being.
Q: (L) Who was the god that spoke to Moses on the mount?
A: Audible projection of Lizards.
Q: (L) Who was Yahweh?
A: False teacher.
Q: (RC) Who was Jehovah?
A: Moniker variance of previous answer.
Q: Who was Jehovah?
A: Lizard projection.
It is not much and the context is not very extensive. I conclude from these passages that Jahovah and Yahweh, at different times in the history of the world, may have appeared as:

Lizard projections, 4D STS, artificially created entities that have been set up and sent to 3 Density with the consciousness of the Lizard being attached to them, or these beings/projections were remotely controlled by Lizard in order to impress people or specific individuals by influencing their beliefs and possibly sharing misinformation. They could call themselves Jahovah or Yahweh, or so they have been called by the people after the fact.

Another option is that Jahovah and Yahweh could be some "false teachers", just people who have designated themselves as Jahovah or Yahweh incarnations or something like that, who were trying to get something for themselves or they were some kind of undercover agents working to disinform people, and that was their deliberate cover.

And one more. Entirely fictional characters made by humans or inspired by 4D STS as purely fictional characters in the literature presented to people to misinform and control them.

All three options are possible across human history and are not mutually exclusive. Given the length of time, the multitude of different events, characters, and people who somehow wanted to influence it, all of these manifestations of Yahweh and Jehovah may have taken place in history.
 

OutSky

Jedi
.......
Q: Who was Jehovah?
A: Lizard projection.

Q: (L) Who was Yahweh.
A: Fictional being.
........
It really is all about what we read, correct? So thanks for your suggestion.
I don't see a problem. What is the problem you see? Obviously, a projection is fictional.

Exactly, like said Laura. To add some to this, as I see, the two above sentences are complementary, so, I don’t perceive any conflict between them. By the way, actually the sentences are not in the same session but rather appear in distinct sessions —Yahweh on October 7, 1994; Jehovah on October 20, 1994. Anyway, along with the transcripts is usual the C’s taking recurrent or intersectional questions to opportunely insert a larger perspective. Or else when they think that enough was provided, then they simply say something like “this was already talked.”

But indeed to my knowledge Yahweh and Jehovah are the same thing. Anyway, as well the C’s made this point very clearly:
September 16, 1995 session

Q: (L) Who was Yahweh?
A: False teacher.
Q: (RC) Who was Jehovah?
A: Moniker variance of previous answer.

But well, this thread has some interesting notices that would be a shame to overlook. Anyway, I have just a few thoughts as my knowledge of Sumerian scripts is restrict to occasional consults in dictionaries.

Although I do think that many —if not all— translations of the Academia typically mislead the real meaning of old scripts, nevertheless amaze me how those translations, narrowed by local social enforcement, still unconsciously escape enough to touch the knowledge imbued in the subconscious of every man as much he may be controlled by those in power.

Considering my above statement, I can give an example as one to be compatible with this thread but restricting it to the "hyena" glyphs.

Yes, "charioteer" is a good translation, I agree with it. However, —like copying the C’s above— I see it as a major complement instead of so much like reparation. "Charioteer" speaks of the occupation and actions of a personage in the proverb. The academic translation, that is, the supposed "misleading" hyena, speaks of the characteristics (personality) of the personage. So, as I see, at least to this specific case, both are correct interpretations in spite of so different from each other.

Now, if my latter statement is the case, of course the next step is to read those lines in the “tablets” as to confirm such insight. Another post in this thread very correctly, I think, mentions a connection with astronomy; also was mentioned, “double or triple meaning,“ well, this uses to be the case everywhere. To my knowledge “Auriga” is an excellent clue.

Still, regarding “misleading” translations, it seems the human soul has usually some way out.
October, 22 1994 session

Q: (L) At one point in a previous transmission it was stated that the Lizard beings altered the human race after a battle for their own “feeding” purposes. Could you clarify this?
A: It would not be possible for these beings to completely control your existence. If it were you would not be able to do the things your race has done. ……..
 

gnosisxsophia

Jedi Council Member
And the hole, that represents the top portion of Virgo :

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

Changing tack from Yahweh and returning to your earlier 'Serpent' image.

Appearing as it does relative to 'Bootes' (The Ploughman), the proximity of Hydra happened to bring 'Inanna's descent to the underworld' to mind (with all of it's suggestively celestial echoes) and specifically the curious request by 'Dumuzid' to enable his 'return' from 'below';

Turn my hands into snake's hands and turn my feet into snake's feet, so I can escape my demons...

At first glance quite a strange metaphor one would think unless, as per Michael's earlier comment, the story is meant to describe the observable transit of figures in the sky?

''Inanna's'' answer to the gatekeeper (of 'the underworld') regarding the purpose of her visit, possibly another of many 'markers';

..."I am Inanna going to the east."
"If you are Inana going to the east, why have you travelled to the land of no return? How did you set your heart on the road whose traveller never returns?"

"Because lord Gud-gal-ana, the husband of my elder sister holy Erec-ki-gala, has died...

As you would undoubtedly be aware, some scholars considering Gugalanna to be the same figure as the Bull of Heaven, slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Another tale considered by many also placed in the heavens;

The ancient tale then goes on to describe the purpose of. Gilgamesh’s (Orion’s) quest – it is to slay the constellation of Taurus the Bull. In stellar terms, this is perfectly logical. It is the constellation of Orion who is armed with the axe. The bow and has a sword hanging from his prominent belt. It is Orion who had drawn his bow and has aimed it at the adjacent constellation of Taurus.

Inanna's 'descent' on her way to the East, plausibly then pointing to the coincidental 'rising' of another figure in the sky?

Inanna and Ereshkigal represent polar opposites: Inanna is the Queen of Heaven, but Ereshkigal is the queen of Irkalla


Which, for mine, makes the imagery of the 'Shepherd' (in addition to the 'Farmer') from within 'The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi' another interesting proposition. Also figuring I'm probably not alone in finding the terminology rather alluring;

My vulva, the horn,
The Boat of Heaven
Is full of eagerness like the young moon.
My untilled land lies fallow.

As for me, Inanna,
Who will plow my vulva?
Who will plow my high field?

Who will station the ox there?

Particularly within the 'Harvest' context with which the poem begins and primarily because after stumbling across the Vučedol culture a little while ago, who turned out be contemporary with 'Sumer', after discovering they are allegedly responsible for evidence of the earliest known European calendar. Also found the detail below rather suggestive?

The year at Vucedol began with the spring equinox, when the Sun symbolically supplanted the most important winter constellation of Orion. To be more exact, that night Orion s Belt appeared a short while for the last time in the winter sky, disappearing for several months. This chance circumstance, noted by the inhabitants of Vucedol, today no longer exists because of the course of time (precession), helped them in determining the first day of the new year, but also in coordinating the number of days in their year (unknown to us) with the actual number of days of the yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun...

Also possibly emblematic of the 'Dying and resurrected God / Rescue of Kore etc.' mythos?

As to 'polar opposites', the eternal dance of Scorpius / Orion heralding both equinoxes (like clockwork) throughout the entire 'Christian' era and also to this day - if one is looking anyway...

Which leads me to 'Gilgamesh's' dream of a meteor, also his love for an 'axe';

Gilgamesh is drawn to the rock as if it were a woman. After lifting it with great effort, he carries it to his mother, Ninsun. In the second dream, Gilgamesh finds an axe lying in the street. Throngs of people surround it, overcome with admiration. Gilgamesh too loves the axe, as much as if it were his wife.

Personally finding those sort of allusions intriguing, especially with the contemporary Vučedol also sharing a reverence for the symbol;

Since the Late Neothithic, the fertility cult is also represented by the symbol of the axe, prompting the cleansing of the world from the old and bygone, to stimulate the renewal of life...During the Neolithic in the Vučedol culture (3,000- 2,200 BC) appears the symbol of the double axe (labrys), which is believed to originate in the Aegean cultural region and reached this region via the Morava and Vardar, as well as the Shkumbin and Haliakmon valleys .

The bull is another fertility symbol (apparently male fertility)...

Much like the goddess worshipping Minoans;

Prominent Minoan sacred symbols include the bull and the horns of consecration, the labrys double-headed axe, and possibly the serpent.

Because the etymology of this ubiquitous 'axe' then strikes as perhaps also reflected in Inanna's overt and illustrative reference to her nether regions?

Plutarch relates that the word labrys was a Lydian word for "axe": Many scholars including Evans assert that the word labyrinth is derived from labrys and thus, would imply "house of the double axe". A priestly corporation in Delphi was named "Labyades". The original name was probably "Labryades", servants of the double axe. In Roman times at Patrai and Messene, a goddess Laphria was worshipped, commonly identified with Artemis.

The double triangle labrys design, identical with the one found in the labyrinth of Knossos but without the handle, was used up until medieval times to denote the womb. The genital symbolism is therefore quite clear. Whether the word Labyrinth is derived from labrys or labus, it strongly indicates the maze or labyrinth was originally a graphic symbolic representation of the womb and vaginal channel.

The labrys is a symbol of the female labia at the entrance of the womb and the butterfly, which is connected with rebirth. The double axe is also associated with the even more ancient hourglass figure of the Goddess.

Returning to Sumer, a lovely example of a 'butterfly' from the Harrapan seal;

1613521800319.png

Some scholars also considering the Minoan double-axe to be of Sumerian origin;

1613522549734.png

Having evolved from the hourglass form 'ZAG';

1613522079448.png

Zagmuk, which literally means "beginning of the year", is a Mesopotamian festival celebrating the New Year. The feast fell in December and lasted about 12 days. It celebrates the triumph of Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, over the forces of Chaos, symbolized in later times by Tiamat. The battle between Marduk and Chaos lasts 12 days, as does the festival of Zagmuk. In Uruk the festival was associated with the god An, the Sumerian god of the night sky. Both are essentially equivalent in all respects to the Akkadian "Akitu" festival. In some variations, Marduk is slain by Tiamat on the winter solstice and resurrected on the vernal equinox.

1613523511760.png

Would be interested to hear your thoughts?

Cheers

J
 

Attachments

  • 1613523269045.png
    1613523269045.png
    31 KB · Views: 0
Top Bottom