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:
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.