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.
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.