There's just a ton of speculation out there about what the whole Noah story was about. I came across some writing that I feel is crucial to sorting out some of the issues which seems to almost be unknown:
Short as it is, it's full of what I think of as "anomalous evidence". That is, very strange statements are made that don't lend themselves to what most people like, which is a "storybook narrative" that can made to support their existing worldview. So when I find an interpretation of these very strange things that fits the very strange theories I have, I find it very convincing.
So as concerns Noah, he was said to be "perfect in his generations". Every researcher thinks that means he was of purely human genetics. But that fragment says his appearance was so odd his father believes he was sired by an angel! When the issue eventually makes it to Enoch, he says, "Don't worry about it, he's Lamech's son. A big flood is coming and Noah and his sons are going to survive it." Noah also lived almost a thousand years, so I would say there's no way he was a human like you and me.
Making it more odd is that the Flood doesn't come for 600 more years! Pretty delayed for a punishment. Other sources and even certain interpretations of Bible passages seem to indicate the Flood was caused by the close passage of Nibiru.
What makes sense to me is that the return of Nibiru could be predicted as far ahead as one would like, and perhaps it was known that this next one would be a close passage causing great destruction. As I put it together, Yahweh decided that--given the Nephilim genetics floating around causing a lot of evil and a lot of suffering--he'd just go ahead and let the whole place get reset. (Longer story, but Enoch had apparently been talking to Yahweh's half-brother, the scientist that engineered humans and who wanted to save some people.)
As to the issue of how certain I am about this, well, there's a limit to how certain you can be with fragmentary evidence. But I see over and over and over how the wildest aspects of the story I've put together lock into place with one another.
There's one such example in that fragment of the Book of Noah. Long story, but I had put together that Atlantis was an empire based in Antarctica before it shifted to it's current position, and further that it had been founded by Poseidon, who was actually Enki who I mentioned above.
When Methuselah seeks out Enoch, he finds him at "the ends of the earth". If you had to pick out where the ends of the Earth were, would you come up with anything other than the Arctic and Antarctic?
I mean, I'm decently creative, but I couldn't begin to come up with these interlocking associations if I tried. And I've found so many I refuse to think it's all coincidence.
Interesting. Interesting... I'd actually never heard of the book of Noah. Didn't know that was in the dead sea scrolls. Cool read.
I don't know about Atlantis being in Antarctica. Lately, I really like Jimmy Corsetti's Richat structure explanation on the Bright Insight channel. But I do tend to agree that there is something weird going on with Antarctica, and that it's a candidate.
This whole idea that people were eating frozen mammoths in like the 30s (kind've) and that Greenland was insta-frozen has me thinking the Pole Shift thing might be a reasonable catalyst for the flood after all. And that also plays into a bunch of other things.
It might also explain why so much of our history is lost, why the Hopi think the world has been destroyed 3 times in the past, why Plato talks about the Egyptians mentioning the same thing.
As far as people living for thousands of years, I have no idea there. I've heard that's the curse (from Genesis) doing its work. I've heard that maybe because of the weakening of the magnetic field we're just more exposed and dying sooner. I've even heard there was a vapor canopy covering the earth. Your idea though is that Noah wasn't a pure human at all?
And you used the term Yahweh. Do you believe in God then, like a greater God, creator of the the universe? It's sounding like your thought is the Annunaki were closer to him?
...And what do you think about the idea of a Messiah? That's a concept that's sort of everywhere historically.
I got the "Atlantis in Antarctica" theory from the work of Rand and Rose Flem-Ath. It works into the Richat Structure thesis in that Atlantis was a worldwide empire based in Antarctica with one of the outposts being in Mali. I've often wondered if Corsetti is a sort of limited hangout specifically to divert from Antarctica. I've never once heard him mention it, and here he is popping up on Rogan, a controlled outlet.
Part of this whole theory concerns the sudden shift of the Antarctic that hardly anyone talks about. Take a look at the Piri Reis map. Everyone talks about how the coast is shown ice-free, which indicates a warmer climate there, but even more startling is that it is shown connected to South America!
Now look at that same area on a globe. Notice that the Andes is all bent to the east, and there's another corresponding mountain range in Antarctica also bent to the east. Now look more carefully and you'll see a chain of islands wrapping around and connecting them. I suggest this was a single mountain range, bent all out shape during the shift. Who knows what other havoc took place during this time.
As for long lives, it seems as if it has something to do with Anunnaki genetics in humans. They live, I believe, for perhaps 500k years. If you look at the Sumerian King List, you'll see three distinct lengths of reign: first tens of thousands of years, then thousands, then hundreds. I would suggest these correspond to full Anunnaki, part-Anunnaki, then mostly human genetics.
So thinking about Noah, there's that very anomalous incident where his sons saw him naked. No one wants to see their Dad's dingle, sure, but what's the big deal? I'm guessing here that there was something about his physical appearance that made him obviously not a normal human. What that was would be pure guesswork.
Very, very, very long story short, it turns out the Bible is basically about some of the dealings of the Anunnaki with humans. Actually, it's only a small part of a much larger picture. You can approach it as Mauro Biglino does by just reading what's in the text and realizing it's been terribly mistranslated, and a very different story emerges with a correct translation.
IDK how much Biglino really knows about the whole story, although I can see he treads very carefully when brushing up against people's religious convictions. As for myself, I just want the truth.
So it turns out, in brief, that in the Old Testament, these are the fundamental mistranslations (English = original Hebrew = actual identity):
"God" = "Elohim" = Anunnaki (or Nibiruans)
"Lord" = YHVH (or Yahweh) = the Anunnaki named Enlil
Plus, it turns out that Satan is the Anunnaki named Marduk, nephew of Enlil.
The Creator of the Universe is named only once, in Genesis 1:1, which was of course mistranslated. The proper translation is, "The Father of the Beginnings created the Elohim, the heavens and the Earth".
Finally, it's much harder to discern working in the New Testament, but clearly Jesus (and probably other messiahs in history) was sent to aid humanity by one of the Anunnaki, either Enlil of Enki.
It's all a story that the word "fascinating" does not begin to do justice to, and it makes me sad that people are missing out on it. But let's be honest: very few really want to hear it.
I've definitely seen the Piri Reis map. But I guess I never fully considered that it was connected to Antarctica. You make a solid point. Me, I assumed there was some margin for error there, based on the fact that they were working 2 dimensionally when they were making those maps (essentially), and we only have a few examples that corroborate anything similar. This isn't me discounting what you're saying, though. Just throwing my thoughts out there.
I'm aware of the Sumerian king list, too. Definitely a trip. I've always assumed there was more to that particular story.
I'm also vaguely aware of this idea that there is some different more Ancient-Sumerian-friendly, for lack of a better term, translation of the Bible. Do you know where this Mauro Biglino fellow dug up this new translation?
And I'm also not one who is going to tell you there's no chance anything in the Bible was mistranslated. I've heard a fair bit of evidence to suggest otherwise. But if you're down with Jesus, do you think he was pointing humanity towards a God or the Annunaki? And... do you think he's coming back?
I agree that this is all super fascinating. But there is still this issue of trusting authorities to me. I suppose I should probably start looking more into the actual supporting evidence. Got any suggestions on where to start?
Actually, in one of his presentations Biglino tells the "origin story" of this part of his work (couldn't tell you exactly where, though). He's a professional translator and was working for the official publishing house for the Vatican. Starting with the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew copy of the OT, he said, "I'd like to do a translation in the most straightforward way possible. No interpretations, just the plain meanings of the words."
As he moved along in the work, it dawned on him that the story being told was much different that everyone seemed to think. It was actually the story of the interaction of humans with a group of powerful extraterrestrial beings. Sometime later he realized that this group of beings were the same ones the Sumerians wrote about and that Sitchin studied. In short, all his work is original.
As far as Jesus, his whole message boils down to, "act morally". Interestingly, the same simple message comes out of the OT as well, but it's like no one bothers actually reading it. Take a look at Isaiah 1, for example. Yahweh flatly rejects what we would call "organized religion" and tells the people basically just to "act morally". In more modern and developed terminology, we would simply say that everyone should act in accordance with "natural law" (the moral law of the Universe, see Mark Passio). Well, none of this has anything specifically to do with God or the Anunnaki, unless you want to say that the Creator established natural law in the Universe along with it's physical laws.
Jesus (and the other Anunnaki) are definitely coming back. (Note that Satan and his faction of 200 Anunnaki never left.) Jesus says that he'll return "at the end of the age". The Anunnaki alternated rulership of the Earth by zodiacal ages, each being 2160 years.
There are giant problems figuring out when that is, though. Our chronology has been so screwed up with fake history and lies we can't tell what year it really is. Strong evidence tells us that Jesus, for example, was born in what we would call the year 1152 AD. Then we have to establish what year the last turnover was.
You can see the problem. With reasonable guesses, the end of the age is still several centuries out, but on the other hand the Elites sure seem to act like they're running out of time. So who knows? Could be tomorrow or could be a thousand years. In my book, nothing about any of that should affect our adherence to natural law.
Finally, as to where to start, I suggest it should all be guided by the questions you pose to yourself. What do you really want to know about? You'll end up branching off anyway. Like with me, I set out years ago to learn about the "Baltic Dry Index" so I could improve my investing activities. I still do not know what it is.
There's just a ton of speculation out there about what the whole Noah story was about. I came across some writing that I feel is crucial to sorting out some of the issues which seems to almost be unknown:
FRAGMENT OF THE BOOK OF NOAH
Short as it is, it's full of what I think of as "anomalous evidence". That is, very strange statements are made that don't lend themselves to what most people like, which is a "storybook narrative" that can made to support their existing worldview. So when I find an interpretation of these very strange things that fits the very strange theories I have, I find it very convincing.
So as concerns Noah, he was said to be "perfect in his generations". Every researcher thinks that means he was of purely human genetics. But that fragment says his appearance was so odd his father believes he was sired by an angel! When the issue eventually makes it to Enoch, he says, "Don't worry about it, he's Lamech's son. A big flood is coming and Noah and his sons are going to survive it." Noah also lived almost a thousand years, so I would say there's no way he was a human like you and me.
Making it more odd is that the Flood doesn't come for 600 more years! Pretty delayed for a punishment. Other sources and even certain interpretations of Bible passages seem to indicate the Flood was caused by the close passage of Nibiru.
What makes sense to me is that the return of Nibiru could be predicted as far ahead as one would like, and perhaps it was known that this next one would be a close passage causing great destruction. As I put it together, Yahweh decided that--given the Nephilim genetics floating around causing a lot of evil and a lot of suffering--he'd just go ahead and let the whole place get reset. (Longer story, but Enoch had apparently been talking to Yahweh's half-brother, the scientist that engineered humans and who wanted to save some people.)
As to the issue of how certain I am about this, well, there's a limit to how certain you can be with fragmentary evidence. But I see over and over and over how the wildest aspects of the story I've put together lock into place with one another.
There's one such example in that fragment of the Book of Noah. Long story, but I had put together that Atlantis was an empire based in Antarctica before it shifted to it's current position, and further that it had been founded by Poseidon, who was actually Enki who I mentioned above.
When Methuselah seeks out Enoch, he finds him at "the ends of the earth". If you had to pick out where the ends of the Earth were, would you come up with anything other than the Arctic and Antarctic?
I mean, I'm decently creative, but I couldn't begin to come up with these interlocking associations if I tried. And I've found so many I refuse to think it's all coincidence.
Interesting. Interesting... I'd actually never heard of the book of Noah. Didn't know that was in the dead sea scrolls. Cool read.
I don't know about Atlantis being in Antarctica. Lately, I really like Jimmy Corsetti's Richat structure explanation on the Bright Insight channel. But I do tend to agree that there is something weird going on with Antarctica, and that it's a candidate.
This whole idea that people were eating frozen mammoths in like the 30s (kind've) and that Greenland was insta-frozen has me thinking the Pole Shift thing might be a reasonable catalyst for the flood after all. And that also plays into a bunch of other things.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/permafrozen-dinner/604069/
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-scientists-stunned-beneath-mile-deep-greenland.html
It might also explain why so much of our history is lost, why the Hopi think the world has been destroyed 3 times in the past, why Plato talks about the Egyptians mentioning the same thing.
As far as people living for thousands of years, I have no idea there. I've heard that's the curse (from Genesis) doing its work. I've heard that maybe because of the weakening of the magnetic field we're just more exposed and dying sooner. I've even heard there was a vapor canopy covering the earth. Your idea though is that Noah wasn't a pure human at all?
And you used the term Yahweh. Do you believe in God then, like a greater God, creator of the the universe? It's sounding like your thought is the Annunaki were closer to him?
...And what do you think about the idea of a Messiah? That's a concept that's sort of everywhere historically.
I got the "Atlantis in Antarctica" theory from the work of Rand and Rose Flem-Ath. It works into the Richat Structure thesis in that Atlantis was a worldwide empire based in Antarctica with one of the outposts being in Mali. I've often wondered if Corsetti is a sort of limited hangout specifically to divert from Antarctica. I've never once heard him mention it, and here he is popping up on Rogan, a controlled outlet.
Part of this whole theory concerns the sudden shift of the Antarctic that hardly anyone talks about. Take a look at the Piri Reis map. Everyone talks about how the coast is shown ice-free, which indicates a warmer climate there, but even more startling is that it is shown connected to South America!
Now look at that same area on a globe. Notice that the Andes is all bent to the east, and there's another corresponding mountain range in Antarctica also bent to the east. Now look more carefully and you'll see a chain of islands wrapping around and connecting them. I suggest this was a single mountain range, bent all out shape during the shift. Who knows what other havoc took place during this time.
As for long lives, it seems as if it has something to do with Anunnaki genetics in humans. They live, I believe, for perhaps 500k years. If you look at the Sumerian King List, you'll see three distinct lengths of reign: first tens of thousands of years, then thousands, then hundreds. I would suggest these correspond to full Anunnaki, part-Anunnaki, then mostly human genetics.
So thinking about Noah, there's that very anomalous incident where his sons saw him naked. No one wants to see their Dad's dingle, sure, but what's the big deal? I'm guessing here that there was something about his physical appearance that made him obviously not a normal human. What that was would be pure guesswork.
Very, very, very long story short, it turns out the Bible is basically about some of the dealings of the Anunnaki with humans. Actually, it's only a small part of a much larger picture. You can approach it as Mauro Biglino does by just reading what's in the text and realizing it's been terribly mistranslated, and a very different story emerges with a correct translation.
IDK how much Biglino really knows about the whole story, although I can see he treads very carefully when brushing up against people's religious convictions. As for myself, I just want the truth.
So it turns out, in brief, that in the Old Testament, these are the fundamental mistranslations (English = original Hebrew = actual identity):
Plus, it turns out that Satan is the Anunnaki named Marduk, nephew of Enlil.
The Creator of the Universe is named only once, in Genesis 1:1, which was of course mistranslated. The proper translation is, "The Father of the Beginnings created the Elohim, the heavens and the Earth".
Finally, it's much harder to discern working in the New Testament, but clearly Jesus (and probably other messiahs in history) was sent to aid humanity by one of the Anunnaki, either Enlil of Enki.
It's all a story that the word "fascinating" does not begin to do justice to, and it makes me sad that people are missing out on it. But let's be honest: very few really want to hear it.
I've definitely seen the Piri Reis map. But I guess I never fully considered that it was connected to Antarctica. You make a solid point. Me, I assumed there was some margin for error there, based on the fact that they were working 2 dimensionally when they were making those maps (essentially), and we only have a few examples that corroborate anything similar. This isn't me discounting what you're saying, though. Just throwing my thoughts out there.
I'm aware of the Sumerian king list, too. Definitely a trip. I've always assumed there was more to that particular story.
I'm also vaguely aware of this idea that there is some different more Ancient-Sumerian-friendly, for lack of a better term, translation of the Bible. Do you know where this Mauro Biglino fellow dug up this new translation?
And I'm also not one who is going to tell you there's no chance anything in the Bible was mistranslated. I've heard a fair bit of evidence to suggest otherwise. But if you're down with Jesus, do you think he was pointing humanity towards a God or the Annunaki? And... do you think he's coming back?
I agree that this is all super fascinating. But there is still this issue of trusting authorities to me. I suppose I should probably start looking more into the actual supporting evidence. Got any suggestions on where to start?
Actually, in one of his presentations Biglino tells the "origin story" of this part of his work (couldn't tell you exactly where, though). He's a professional translator and was working for the official publishing house for the Vatican. Starting with the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew copy of the OT, he said, "I'd like to do a translation in the most straightforward way possible. No interpretations, just the plain meanings of the words."
As he moved along in the work, it dawned on him that the story being told was much different that everyone seemed to think. It was actually the story of the interaction of humans with a group of powerful extraterrestrial beings. Sometime later he realized that this group of beings were the same ones the Sumerians wrote about and that Sitchin studied. In short, all his work is original.
As far as Jesus, his whole message boils down to, "act morally". Interestingly, the same simple message comes out of the OT as well, but it's like no one bothers actually reading it. Take a look at Isaiah 1, for example. Yahweh flatly rejects what we would call "organized religion" and tells the people basically just to "act morally". In more modern and developed terminology, we would simply say that everyone should act in accordance with "natural law" (the moral law of the Universe, see Mark Passio). Well, none of this has anything specifically to do with God or the Anunnaki, unless you want to say that the Creator established natural law in the Universe along with it's physical laws.
Jesus (and the other Anunnaki) are definitely coming back. (Note that Satan and his faction of 200 Anunnaki never left.) Jesus says that he'll return "at the end of the age". The Anunnaki alternated rulership of the Earth by zodiacal ages, each being 2160 years.
There are giant problems figuring out when that is, though. Our chronology has been so screwed up with fake history and lies we can't tell what year it really is. Strong evidence tells us that Jesus, for example, was born in what we would call the year 1152 AD. Then we have to establish what year the last turnover was.
You can see the problem. With reasonable guesses, the end of the age is still several centuries out, but on the other hand the Elites sure seem to act like they're running out of time. So who knows? Could be tomorrow or could be a thousand years. In my book, nothing about any of that should affect our adherence to natural law.
Finally, as to where to start, I suggest it should all be guided by the questions you pose to yourself. What do you really want to know about? You'll end up branching off anyway. Like with me, I set out years ago to learn about the "Baltic Dry Index" so I could improve my investing activities. I still do not know what it is.