It's something with little meaning, and "They" can simply reverse themselves after another 20-year study. I think "They" like to throw these things out from time to time to keep the masses in thrall to their own egos.
That is, those that fancy themselves "aware of the JQ" or whatever get to congratulate themselves that they "were right about the Jews all along". On the flip side, the normies get to say, "Everyone who comments on this is an anti-Semite, which of course makes me a better person than them for pointing this out." The cycle continues because none of these people can raise their consciousness to leave that cycle.
As far as the factoid itself, I can't say it makes sense but what I do see is that no one actually tries to make any sense of it. The Catholic Isabella I of Castile sends out a Jew on this important mission? Oh well, maybe she's a crypto, right? At precisely the same time, Torquemada is running around and they clean house (like pronto) with the Alhambra Decree giving all the Jews the boot.
Does anyone attempt to bring these basic things together under a sensible thesis? Perhaps one that points us towards a deeper understanding of our real history? Nope, just Jews = bad or Jews = good (choose one).
As I see it, this type of divisive diversion keeps people away from the really sensitive issues. For example, was America really named after Chris's buddy Amerigo Vespucci? No, it's ridiculous upon any examination. America turns out to be named after Satan. That's a sensitive issue pointing at real history, but a story for another day.
Snooping on you, I found this one interesting. Do you have the goods on (my guess) MLK or something, because I haven't found a core etymology as solid as yours sounds?
The goods on MLK the civil rights leader is that he faked his own death. The hilarious aspect is that if you look up photos of him, he was apparently buried in two distinctly different caskets, like no one else ever.
To be serious, though, if we're talking the Hebrew word root, no, it's through another path. You have to tentatively accept the thesis that the entity that has come down to us as Satan (although a metric shit ton of misunderstood and made-up cruft has collected around him) was one of the Anunnaki, namely Marduk. I hate to spoil the ending that way, but it's impossible to follow the plot without that in mind.
If you're familiar with Manley P. Hall's telling of the origin of the name, he's correct up to near the end. The mistake he makes (and he sounds 100% certain as he does it) is that the South American tribe lived in "Amaruca" or "the land of Amaru", and that this Amaru was also known as Quetzalcoatl. That's not correct.
If you look up the original cuneiform of Marduk, it can be read two ways, either logographically or syllabically. In one of them, you read AMAR.UTU. Well, we can see the barely altered "Amaru" right there, can't we?
Interestingly--and maybe this will help these novel ideas gel--is that if you read it the other way, you get NAMR.UD. Recognize it? Yeah, it's where we get "Nimrod" (and "Nemrut" and various other corruptions). Also, both of those readings mean something like "young bull of the Sun" or "golden calf". Intriguing, right?
These may strike as happenstance or long reaches or simply made up, but I can only add that I started discovering these things around 2017 or so, and you would not believe the pile of evidence I've collected since then.
Hmm, it becomes quite a web, and I totally affirm the amassing of piles and the distinction of solid evidence from stretchers.
Namr-Ud goes back to the old Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a bit suspect. I'll buy that Marduk comes from Sumerian Amar-Utu-Ak (with Utu being the Anuna), but then the other JE reading "ideographically" would have to be An-Amar-Utu, where the dingir is read as "An" meaning "sky".
Though Babylon was very minor in that day, we might speculate that Moses might have known of a then-local tradition of An-Amar-Utu via the Babylonian Chronicles about King Amar-Sin, which would have been available to Abram in Ur, so the transmission is not impossible, though ranked dubious.
The difficulties become (1) Moses regards Nimrod as a Cushite king, nor an obscure Ur deity; (2) It's a bit more likely Amar-Sin was not related to Marduk from the then-obscure Babylon, but to the Amorite namesake-deity Martu from Lagash (though I wouldn't be surprised if these were spiritual clones); (3) Hall is not a reliable source and though amaru is extant you'd think there'd be a better source for ka meaning soil in Incan or Mayan; (4) you'd need a transmission chain from Amar-Utu to amaru, which is highly unlikely.
So you're right it's intriguing, but there are so many intrigues in pseudoetymology that I brush some off or bookmark them to see if they ever accumulate better evidence. My take is that, first, although making Marduk/Merodach into Nimrod is not impossible, it's likelier that Marduk started out a relative nobody and Nimrod started out hot and heavy (here I propose his identity with Naram-Sin grandson of Sargon). Second, the theory of amaru-ka is somewhat competitive, but I don't have that linked to the east yet; the feathered serpent is a very different chain of transmission from the calf. Mental note: look for eastern serpents named similar to amaru.
Third, your most potent connection is that the original Marduk would have been an Anuna (using your term) and was probably one among several inspirations for the modern satan. The other connections may be better explained by convergent etymology than divergent. Summarizing for my own reference, amaru (Inca serpent), Martu or Amarru (Lagash representation of Amorites), and Amar-Utu (Babylon local calf deity) have tempting appearances of connection but not clear paths of identity. (The fact that Amar-Sin connects to both Martu and Amar-Utu does not converge them; the fact that Naram-Sin connects to Amar-Sin does not converge Nimrod and Marduk. Also today I discovered Nin-Urta (older Nippur barley deity, possibly later Nisroch), who is similarly not likely to be Nimrod despite the consonants.) If, however, "satan" is to be defined as the worst of the Anuna, I'm not sure offhand that'd be Marduk, who is dependent on Utu/Shamash.
Well, let me lay this on on you, and if this doesn't get you then nothing will. Personally, I almost fell out of my chair when I stumbled across it.
A few years back, I was getting hella tired of people on social media blaming everything on Satan. He didn't exist (or so I knew at the time) and so it was a real conversation (and investigation) stopper. I was trying to find some basic contradiction or plot hole in the Satan story to point people towards, like "Just check this out, m'kay?"
It eventually occurred to me that there might be an opening along the "son of the morning star" and "son of Venus" line. I knew a little bit about both astronomy and ancient pantheons by that time.
Isaiah 14:12 is where we get that, as well as the only mention of "Lucifer". You'll find no shortage of people waving their hands around about exactly what that means and you're free to choose any of them. I, however, just wanted to check whether the verse referred to the planet, or a star, or what. The translations are all over the map so I knew I had to go to the Hebrew.
The line reads "ben shahar", so I looked up "shahar". He's actually Shahar, god of the dawn in the Ugarit pantheon. You should already be asking yourself why the Israelites thought Satan was the son of a pagan deity, and also why no one but me talks about it.
So I tried looking for more about Shahar and found his origin story: The king of the gods was walking along one day and encountered two women bathing... and each woman bore a son. They were Shahar, god of the dawn, and Shalim, god of dusk. Lucifer would then be the son of the elder half-brother.
That's when I almost fell off my chair.
I recognized that exact genealogy. In the Sumerian pantheon, Anu is the king of the gods and he had two sons who are half-brothers. Enki is the elder and Enlil is the younger. Marduk is the son of Enki.
It's something with little meaning, and "They" can simply reverse themselves after another 20-year study. I think "They" like to throw these things out from time to time to keep the masses in thrall to their own egos.
That is, those that fancy themselves "aware of the JQ" or whatever get to congratulate themselves that they "were right about the Jews all along". On the flip side, the normies get to say, "Everyone who comments on this is an anti-Semite, which of course makes me a better person than them for pointing this out." The cycle continues because none of these people can raise their consciousness to leave that cycle.
As far as the factoid itself, I can't say it makes sense but what I do see is that no one actually tries to make any sense of it. The Catholic Isabella I of Castile sends out a Jew on this important mission? Oh well, maybe she's a crypto, right? At precisely the same time, Torquemada is running around and they clean house (like pronto) with the Alhambra Decree giving all the Jews the boot.
Does anyone attempt to bring these basic things together under a sensible thesis? Perhaps one that points us towards a deeper understanding of our real history? Nope, just Jews = bad or Jews = good (choose one).
As I see it, this type of divisive diversion keeps people away from the really sensitive issues. For example, was America really named after Chris's buddy Amerigo Vespucci? No, it's ridiculous upon any examination. America turns out to be named after Satan. That's a sensitive issue pointing at real history, but a story for another day.
Snooping on you, I found this one interesting. Do you have the goods on (my guess) MLK or something, because I haven't found a core etymology as solid as yours sounds?
The goods on MLK the civil rights leader is that he faked his own death. The hilarious aspect is that if you look up photos of him, he was apparently buried in two distinctly different caskets, like no one else ever.
To be serious, though, if we're talking the Hebrew word root, no, it's through another path. You have to tentatively accept the thesis that the entity that has come down to us as Satan (although a metric shit ton of misunderstood and made-up cruft has collected around him) was one of the Anunnaki, namely Marduk. I hate to spoil the ending that way, but it's impossible to follow the plot without that in mind.
If you're familiar with Manley P. Hall's telling of the origin of the name, he's correct up to near the end. The mistake he makes (and he sounds 100% certain as he does it) is that the South American tribe lived in "Amaruca" or "the land of Amaru", and that this Amaru was also known as Quetzalcoatl. That's not correct.
If you look up the original cuneiform of Marduk, it can be read two ways, either logographically or syllabically. In one of them, you read AMAR.UTU. Well, we can see the barely altered "Amaru" right there, can't we?
Interestingly--and maybe this will help these novel ideas gel--is that if you read it the other way, you get NAMR.UD. Recognize it? Yeah, it's where we get "Nimrod" (and "Nemrut" and various other corruptions). Also, both of those readings mean something like "young bull of the Sun" or "golden calf". Intriguing, right?
These may strike as happenstance or long reaches or simply made up, but I can only add that I started discovering these things around 2017 or so, and you would not believe the pile of evidence I've collected since then.
Hmm, it becomes quite a web, and I totally affirm the amassing of piles and the distinction of solid evidence from stretchers.
Namr-Ud goes back to the old Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a bit suspect. I'll buy that Marduk comes from Sumerian Amar-Utu-Ak (with Utu being the Anuna), but then the other JE reading "ideographically" would have to be An-Amar-Utu, where the dingir is read as "An" meaning "sky".
Though Babylon was very minor in that day, we might speculate that Moses might have known of a then-local tradition of An-Amar-Utu via the Babylonian Chronicles about King Amar-Sin, which would have been available to Abram in Ur, so the transmission is not impossible, though ranked dubious.
The difficulties become (1) Moses regards Nimrod as a Cushite king, nor an obscure Ur deity; (2) It's a bit more likely Amar-Sin was not related to Marduk from the then-obscure Babylon, but to the Amorite namesake-deity Martu from Lagash (though I wouldn't be surprised if these were spiritual clones); (3) Hall is not a reliable source and though amaru is extant you'd think there'd be a better source for ka meaning soil in Incan or Mayan; (4) you'd need a transmission chain from Amar-Utu to amaru, which is highly unlikely.
So you're right it's intriguing, but there are so many intrigues in pseudoetymology that I brush some off or bookmark them to see if they ever accumulate better evidence. My take is that, first, although making Marduk/Merodach into Nimrod is not impossible, it's likelier that Marduk started out a relative nobody and Nimrod started out hot and heavy (here I propose his identity with Naram-Sin grandson of Sargon). Second, the theory of amaru-ka is somewhat competitive, but I don't have that linked to the east yet; the feathered serpent is a very different chain of transmission from the calf. Mental note: look for eastern serpents named similar to amaru.
Third, your most potent connection is that the original Marduk would have been an Anuna (using your term) and was probably one among several inspirations for the modern satan. The other connections may be better explained by convergent etymology than divergent. Summarizing for my own reference, amaru (Inca serpent), Martu or Amarru (Lagash representation of Amorites), and Amar-Utu (Babylon local calf deity) have tempting appearances of connection but not clear paths of identity. (The fact that Amar-Sin connects to both Martu and Amar-Utu does not converge them; the fact that Naram-Sin connects to Amar-Sin does not converge Nimrod and Marduk. Also today I discovered Nin-Urta (older Nippur barley deity, possibly later Nisroch), who is similarly not likely to be Nimrod despite the consonants.) If, however, "satan" is to be defined as the worst of the Anuna, I'm not sure offhand that'd be Marduk, who is dependent on Utu/Shamash.
Well, let me lay this on on you, and if this doesn't get you then nothing will. Personally, I almost fell out of my chair when I stumbled across it.
A few years back, I was getting hella tired of people on social media blaming everything on Satan. He didn't exist (or so I knew at the time) and so it was a real conversation (and investigation) stopper. I was trying to find some basic contradiction or plot hole in the Satan story to point people towards, like "Just check this out, m'kay?"
It eventually occurred to me that there might be an opening along the "son of the morning star" and "son of Venus" line. I knew a little bit about both astronomy and ancient pantheons by that time.
Isaiah 14:12 is where we get that, as well as the only mention of "Lucifer". You'll find no shortage of people waving their hands around about exactly what that means and you're free to choose any of them. I, however, just wanted to check whether the verse referred to the planet, or a star, or what. The translations are all over the map so I knew I had to go to the Hebrew.
The line reads "ben shahar", so I looked up "shahar". He's actually Shahar, god of the dawn in the Ugarit pantheon. You should already be asking yourself why the Israelites thought Satan was the son of a pagan deity, and also why no one but me talks about it.
So I tried looking for more about Shahar and found his origin story: The king of the gods was walking along one day and encountered two women bathing... and each woman bore a son. They were Shahar, god of the dawn, and Shalim, god of dusk. Lucifer would then be the son of the elder half-brother.
That's when I almost fell off my chair.
I recognized that exact genealogy. In the Sumerian pantheon, Anu is the king of the gods and he had two sons who are half-brothers. Enki is the elder and Enlil is the younger. Marduk is the son of Enki.
Anyway, best of luck with your studies.