The late bronze age. 1177 bc
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (6)
sorted by:
There is a "meta" point to be made about the Bronze Age Collapse: For anyone watching the video, if this is the first you've heard of it, you're in the nearly universal majority. This phenomenon merits scrutiny.
The thing is, when you judge that you should have been taught about some historical event--or at least heard of it--but have never even heard it mentioned in a classroom, a movie screen, or on TV, this indicates something of great importance is being suppressed.
The same thing goes for the Napoleonic Wars, and the War of 1812, the Bank War, the Era of Good Feelings, the Axial Age, etc. Few could give more than a couple of sentences on them, if any at all. This extends to "Babylon", which is often mentioned, but mention is a far as it goes.
So what is being hidden about the Bronze Age Collapse? Looks to me like the "bad guys" took over, then proceeded to erase there ever having been a conflict. Same thing goes for the global Tartarian War of the 1800's. And I don't have any evidence, but I think it was the same people.
Who were those people, who in that era were called the "Sea Peoples"? My best guess is that they would trace to the Phoenicians and from there to (dun dun dunnnnn) Satan himself. But that's a much longer story.
The Bronze Age collapse ca. 1200 was the fall of Canaanite pedophile culture under its own weight allowing lots of Semitic (many), Japhthetic (Caphtorite, Athenian), and Hamitic (Egyptian) tribes to control regions of the Levant. We have all the idols and temples to prove it. The Sea Peoples were Phoenician and were one of those many tribes who benefitted but there were many others. Satan is usually behind all nations that collapse and most nations that replace, so no surprise there. You're right it's not talked about enough, but most of the replacing nations left records of their conquests that modern history thinks are too dull to review. The fact that "bad guys" run most nations at most times isn't a surprise either. I look forward to your thoughts on this.
I'm not as interested in the thoughts of OP "Dr. Professor Eric H. Cline, Ph.D." or the "National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)". When he sells his book on the idea that in 1177 "with their end came the world’s first recorded Dark Ages", he's kinda ignoring the fact that Egypt had a strong New Kingdom from ca. 1540 to ca. 1070 with no interruption due to the nearby Bronze Age Collapse. I suppose you could make a case that Egypt was somehow "subjugated" to priestcraft in the latter of those days but that is a highly speculative theory that doesn't indicate a historical trajectory or a connection to Canaan or Israel. The House of Ramses and the priests worked together throughout the whole later New Kingdom. So I doubt OP is worth it.
There's a particular reason that led me to conclude the Phoenicians were the main followers of Satan in the area (although there were many other groups) and that it was the center of his power. I'll get to where that connects to the Bronze Age Collapse in a second but we have to back up a couple of steps.
Well, farther than that, we have to back up to the paradigm itself. Feel free to stop reading any time because I have long since given up hope that more than a handful (at best) would ever venture so far out as to disagree with pretty much every scriptural, religious, and historic authority on this.
That paradigm is that the Anunnaki were indeed as Sitchin described them. Under that paradigm, the Bible is not a "grand book of all truth" but rather a (corrupted and distorted) snapshot of one group's interactions with a few of these entities.
The last person to say such a thing was Mauro Biglino, and only up to a few years ago when he was "turned", suddenly dropping all his most profound claims. Even Sitchin could not follow it all the way through, which I believe was due to his religious convictions although I have not studied his work.
One of the main pieces of evidence in this concerning Phoenicia is Ezekiel 28, which has presented a historical conundrum. It seems to involves both Satan and the human king of Tyre. Scholars try to square the circle in various ways and with much hand-waving.
I took the direct approach of the Anunnaki paradigm and cut the Gordian Knot: the king of Tyre was Satan, present and ruling in his alien flesh. There is additional evidence solely concerning Tyre that would take several pages to write up.
But to get to the point, there were two further conundra about the Bronze Age Collapse that this solved: how sudden and complete it was, and why no one wanted to talk about it.
As to the first part, rather than the Phoenicians out of Tyre conducting a program of conquest and expansion, the power dynamics of the Anunnaki had changed, and Satan was consolidating his empire in the Mediterranean. IOW, serving the world's harshest eviction notice. I found this sentence deep in my notes:
Well, as I would explain it, The Boss was already living there. And the suppression of all this is so that no one ever puts the pieces back together, and two and two begin to add up to four.
Again, for any of this to make sense, you have to abandon almost all previous scholarship. Or, to be more precise, you have to do as I just did: cut it all up into tiny pieces and paste it back together in a sensible way, although it leads nowhere but far from the pack.
It's a good start and I'm generally supportive. The problem with abandoning everyone and embracing Sitchin is that one particular superpower (Yahweh as taught by Jesus) seems to be winning the game of superpowers right now and that's the side I've chosen. Near East scholar Michael Heiser takes a much more balanced approach that doesn't IMHO contradict the core of the "Anunnaki paradigm".
Correct, Ezek. 28 ties the prince of Tyre and king of Tyre so closely that one might well be the identical son of the other. I think that the current satan is too smart to have been one to have gotten caught up in human flesh in Phoenicia, though, he may have left that to other satan(s).
The Collapse was sudden like Sodom before collapsed suddenly: the culture reached a point of immediate self-destruction, as archaeology attests. It was complete for those cultures for the same reason. We can argue that Jephthah gave fair warning in Judg. 11:24 (which I date as 1174, 300 years after Joshua's death), published widely, that Chemosh would have to fend for himself from then on.
Spiritually, the many nations taking over while the Canaanites collapsed could easily mesh with a satanic consolidation, as satan's game is always to sacrifice one failed work to save others, the more "glorious" the destruction, the better, he thinks. IMHO the corruption and then destruction of the Templars in the 1300s AD was a similar consolidation.
I'm fine with an 1100s Tyrian king being an incarnation a la Anunnaki, but Ezekiel is talking about a 500s Tyrian king if any, so it won't be the same human. If you want to say the satanic HQ was Byblos or Sidon for a long time, that's very reasonable, though I would expect him to have been using backups then too. So I don't see much for me to abandon given your approach so far. How about laying on us the next chapter?
Well, as far as the next chapter, this material just goes on and on and on and as much organization as I've put into my notes, there is still an avalanche of them. One of these days I'll be able to make a more coherent case about any of it.
As far as Heiser, though, I wanted to relate the narrative of the minuscule amount of contact I've had with his work. It was very early on and I heard that he was the most prominent "debunker" of Sitchin. I mean, his website is sitchiniswrong.com, so that pretty much puts his thesis right out front.
Attempting to be a careful researcher, I thought I should consult it, if it was all that obvious. A note of preface: I have never actually studied Sitchin's work, read no more than a couple of paragraphs and watched a couple of short videos. I heard his main thesis, set out to debunk it myself, and... here we are.
Anyway, at that time, years ago, there was a short video presentation right on Heiser's home page. I never saved the link so I'll have to describe it from memory. He basically said, "The Sumerians never mentioned the Anunnaki. Sitchin made it all up and I can prove it. Go to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, run by Oxford, and type 'anunnaki' into the search box. There will be no results."
That's absolutely true. Works just like he says. The Sumerians never once mentioned the Anunnaki in any of the numerous texts that have so far been translated. Debunked. EXCEPT....
The Sumerians did not refer to them as the "Anunnaki", they referred to them as the "Anuna" or the "Anuna gods". As I understand it, the term "Anunnaki" did not come along until the Akkadians, who were the successor civilization of the Sumerians, but they were clearly referring to the same group. The Anuna are all over the writings of the Sumerians, of paramount cultural importance.
Well, Heiser should know this. It's basic. I just picked it up along the way. The question which you can answer for yourself is then: is he that ignorant, or is he deliberately lying to prove his thesis, or is he perhaps--so to speak--deliberately ignorant?
That's as far as I ever felt I needed to look into the work of Michael Heiser.