Biglino knew a ton, but he was always very cautious and cagey when it came to ideas that, let's say, challenged popularly held religious conceptions supposedly rooted in the Bible. He tried to stick with more dry and academic topics from a scholarly point of view that were therefore less disputable. I don't blame him, since Italy is soaked in Catholics and people get hella touchy.
However, there's a big problem with Biglino: he was "turned" not that long ago. It's marked by the time he was interviewed by Hancock. Positions before that were cautious and blunted, while statements after that can be considered polluted and not necessarily what he thinks.
Most assuredly, though, Lucifer and Satan were one and the same person. In fact, one of my first forays into what I considered the dumb idea that Satan existed at all was that I had heard the claim that they were not the same, and I set out to prove that. I wanted to show something to the loudmouth Christians always bitching about "Satan this" and "Satanic that", point them towards a fundamental plot hole or contradiction so that they would shut up about this unhelpful nonsense.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
As far as the various names and monikers for this one single entity, we shouldn't really be surprised at that either. If you think of Hillary Clinton, you could probably come up with two dozen different names and titles by which people would recognize her with specificity, everything from Hillary Rodham to Mrs. Clinton to Hillbeast. That's a single person in one human lifetime.
So if you research these various names, you can find evidence for certain identifications. Sure, it takes a lot of work to straighten it all out but I can say it's doable only because I've done it, at least to my own satisfaction. The identifications come out almost like little mathematical proofs.
As to the Garden of Eden, I would agree that the strongest indication was that the nachash was Enki. Frankly, we don't even know precisely what they meant when they first used that word, only the usages that came afterwards.
If you start with the tentative assumption it was used to describe Enki, then you can see how it works out. For example, there are all these weird indications the Anunnaki had some sort of reptilian characteristics. It would be one hell of a damn coincidence if "nachash" with the connotation of "serpent" just happened to be talking about something entirely unrelated. See what I mean?
Enki wasn't trying to save them, though, since they were alive and well in Eden. What they got was higher consciousness, as the Anunnaki themselves had. The slave species--human livestock--did not require that and should not have it. Frankly, Enlil could have smoked them right then and there and had done with the whole issue, but he did not.
Rather, he outfitted them, arranged for them to have the ability to reproduce, and exiled them to mix with "wild" humans. Even then, he had some kind of sympathy towards the humans with higher consciousness.
Well Enlil flooded them after for being too noisy and breeding too much, i think he was mostly respecting his brother will to his best but he was upset and worried about it from the beginning.
We also know serpent is honorary description for wise, and enki was god of wisdom, but sure one could ask where that choice of language came from in the first place.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
What would that be if i may ask? it doesn't seem you elaborated that out.
Quick note about Enlil: his view of the human race changes fundamentally--radically even--from inception to the end of the Old Testament. It is also possible or even probable that he sent Jesus to coach humanity on how to save itself. Quite a change.
But we should not be surprised. Everyone seems to have the preconception that God or "the gods" or whoever are eternally fixed. They have no inner life, no evolution, and are frankly considered as objects. Even when you transition that to the Anunnaki, the assumption holds. How could they change as humans do? Well, that's not it at all: we change just like they do.
As to Lucifer and the Anunnaki, I'll be brief because you'll want to retrace the steps yourself from your own sources. That's the only way to cement it anyway.
The name "Lucifer" traces back to Isaiah 14:12 and the Hebrew phrase "helel ben shahar". "Ben" is "son", but what is "shahar"? Turns out it's who, and Shahar is a god of the Ugarit pantheon.
Look up the origin story of Shahar and you'll find that his father is the king of the gods. That king encountered two women bathing and one thing led to another led to two half-brothers. Shahar was the elder, god of the dawn, and Shalim was the younger, god of the dusk. Therefore the person 14:12 refers to is the son of the elder half-brother.
Recognize that genealogy? Anu is the king of Nibiru and has two sons. The elder is Enki and the younger is Enlil. Marduk is the son of Enki. So are Marduk and Satan one and the same? You can start putting other pieces into the puzzle.
Babylon of the Bible seems to be the source of so much evil, although no one explains exactly why. You can find that the "tutelary deity" of the ancient city of Babylon was Marduk.
Satan was at odds with Yahweh, whose city was Jerusalem. The etymology of that name traces back to "uru shalem", or the "city of Shalim". Why would the Jews never change the name of their city from that of supposedly some rando pagan deity? Because it was correct all along.
Scholars will always tell you that "helel" translates to "light bringer". In Strong's Concordance, you'll find that it's actually "shining one". In Sumerian, "E.DIN" means something like "home of the Shining Ones".
See how the pieces begin to fit together? There are wayyyy more that slot right into the same puzzle.
Biglino knew a ton, but he was always very cautious and cagey when it came to ideas that, let's say, challenged popularly held religious conceptions supposedly rooted in the Bible. He tried to stick with more dry and academic topics from a scholarly point of view that were therefore less disputable. I don't blame him, since Italy is soaked in Catholics and people get hella touchy.
However, there's a big problem with Biglino: he was "turned" not that long ago. It's marked by the time he was interviewed by Hancock. Positions before that were cautious and blunted, while statements after that can be considered polluted and not necessarily what he thinks.
Most assuredly, though, Lucifer and Satan were one and the same person. In fact, one of my first forays into what I considered the dumb idea that Satan existed at all was that I had heard the claim that they were not the same, and I set out to prove that. I wanted to show something to the loudmouth Christians always bitching about "Satan this" and "Satanic that", point them towards a fundamental plot hole or contradiction so that they would shut up about this unhelpful nonsense.
Welp, that was when I finally stumbled into the direct link between Lucifer and the Anunnaki, and it was all downhill from there, so to speak.
As far as the various names and monikers for this one single entity, we shouldn't really be surprised at that either. If you think of Hillary Clinton, you could probably come up with two dozen different names and titles by which people would recognize her with specificity, everything from Hillary Rodham to Mrs. Clinton to Hillbeast. That's a single person in one human lifetime.
So if you research these various names, you can find evidence for certain identifications. Sure, it takes a lot of work to straighten it all out but I can say it's doable only because I've done it, at least to my own satisfaction. The identifications come out almost like little mathematical proofs.
As to the Garden of Eden, I would agree that the strongest indication was that the nachash was Enki. Frankly, we don't even know precisely what they meant when they first used that word, only the usages that came afterwards.
If you start with the tentative assumption it was used to describe Enki, then you can see how it works out. For example, there are all these weird indications the Anunnaki had some sort of reptilian characteristics. It would be one hell of a damn coincidence if "nachash" with the connotation of "serpent" just happened to be talking about something entirely unrelated. See what I mean?
Enki wasn't trying to save them, though, since they were alive and well in Eden. What they got was higher consciousness, as the Anunnaki themselves had. The slave species--human livestock--did not require that and should not have it. Frankly, Enlil could have smoked them right then and there and had done with the whole issue, but he did not.
Rather, he outfitted them, arranged for them to have the ability to reproduce, and exiled them to mix with "wild" humans. Even then, he had some kind of sympathy towards the humans with higher consciousness.
Well Enlil flooded them after for being too noisy and breeding too much, i think he was mostly respecting his brother will to his best but he was upset and worried about it from the beginning.
We also know serpent is honorary description for wise, and enki was god of wisdom, but sure one could ask where that choice of language came from in the first place.
What would that be if i may ask? it doesn't seem you elaborated that out.
Quick note about Enlil: his view of the human race changes fundamentally--radically even--from inception to the end of the Old Testament. It is also possible or even probable that he sent Jesus to coach humanity on how to save itself. Quite a change.
But we should not be surprised. Everyone seems to have the preconception that God or "the gods" or whoever are eternally fixed. They have no inner life, no evolution, and are frankly considered as objects. Even when you transition that to the Anunnaki, the assumption holds. How could they change as humans do? Well, that's not it at all: we change just like they do.
As to Lucifer and the Anunnaki, I'll be brief because you'll want to retrace the steps yourself from your own sources. That's the only way to cement it anyway.
The name "Lucifer" traces back to Isaiah 14:12 and the Hebrew phrase "helel ben shahar". "Ben" is "son", but what is "shahar"? Turns out it's who, and Shahar is a god of the Ugarit pantheon.
Look up the origin story of Shahar and you'll find that his father is the king of the gods. That king encountered two women bathing and one thing led to another led to two half-brothers. Shahar was the elder, god of the dawn, and Shalim was the younger, god of the dusk. Therefore the person 14:12 refers to is the son of the elder half-brother.
Recognize that genealogy? Anu is the king of Nibiru and has two sons. The elder is Enki and the younger is Enlil. Marduk is the son of Enki. So are Marduk and Satan one and the same? You can start putting other pieces into the puzzle.
Babylon of the Bible seems to be the source of so much evil, although no one explains exactly why. You can find that the "tutelary deity" of the ancient city of Babylon was Marduk.
Satan was at odds with Yahweh, whose city was Jerusalem. The etymology of that name traces back to "uru shalem", or the "city of Shalim". Why would the Jews never change the name of their city from that of supposedly some rando pagan deity? Because it was correct all along.
Scholars will always tell you that "helel" translates to "light bringer". In Strong's Concordance, you'll find that it's actually "shining one". In Sumerian, "E.DIN" means something like "home of the Shining Ones".
See how the pieces begin to fit together? There are wayyyy more that slot right into the same puzzle.