IS THERE ANY TRUTH TO THE CLAIM THAT HYBRID SEMI-GODS STILL EXIST?

0
86
Part 1
Sumerians began to establish themselves in southern Iraq some 7,400 years ago. With some initial help and guidance provided by the leader of one of the two nations of ancient Arabians, they created some of the oldest walled cities in the world, developed an elaborate scripting system, kept records of kings and people and wrote some of the oldest legends of creation that involved hundreds of gods, a number that grew in later times to 2,000 as each city had its own guardian god.

The main Sumerian creation tale was recorded on a tablet found in Nippur, an ancient Mesopotamian city founded 7,000 years ago. The tale goes like this:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being…

More here: http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/origins-human-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065#ixzz3ZFg0LfEB

Much had to be done to make Earth habitable. Human beings were not created yet so the gods toiled the soil and extracted the minerals for other gods. Some of the gods could continue to break their backs no more so they rebelled. Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was slaughtered, and his body and blood was mixed with clay, a plentiful material in southern Iraq. From that substance the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods as described by the text:

In the clay, god and man
Shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound.

Both Sumerian and then later Genesis stories claim that “angels” came to Earth and took human women as wives or simply fucked the beautiful ones they liked. Their children, half-human, half-angelic hybrids, were the giants named in Hebrew b’nai Ha Elohim “sons of God”. “Something in their genetics,” opined one writer, “made them super-sized people.”

More here for the patient:
http://beginningandend.com/bloodlines-of-the-nephilim-a-biblical-study/

This may sound, well – mythical, but the Sumerians of southern Iraq knew something others didn’t know hence the story of the “Nephilim”, the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” before the Deluge according to Genesis 6:4.

This would have been fine except it is further said, “The name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan according to Numbers 13:33” (Same reference as the above).

Why the addition is not “fine”?
Because we know who the “giants” were, and are because their descendants are in millions, and the knowledge led to the conclusion that the Sumerians, at least partly, were referring to people they knew to be the oldest of all human beings.

Whether Sumerians regarded their tales as “scared” we don’t know but other tales were described in such a term.
One of the most celebrated stories of gods and men of all time is that of Gilgamesh, king of Uruk. A creature, Enkidu, was created by the gods to stop Gilgamesh raping the young brides of Uruk. After an initial fight, Gilgamesh and Enkidu became close friends. Together, they journey to the Cedar Mountain (assumed to be Lebanon) and defeat Humbaba, its monstrous guardian. Later they kill the Bull of Heaven, which the goddess Ishtar sends to punish Gilgamesh for spurning her advances for a riotous wet night together away from the eyes of other gods and goddesses.

Gilgamesh is described as two-thirds god and one-third man but it doesn’t say which parts are godly and which are or is human. Apparently, Gilgamesh enforced his first right to a bride’s cunt, or “lord’s right”, on their wedding night. To keep the bridegrooms busy and absolutely exhausted, he orders them to expend their strength in games, tests of strength, or perhaps forced labour on building projects. Come wedding night, the hapless bridegroom can’t raise a finger let alone the tool needed to consummate the marriage.

Enkidu, a primitive man who is covered in hair and lives in the wild with the animals, was entrusted by the gods to confront Gilgamesh. Enkidu is spotted by a trapper, whose livelihood is being ruined because Enkidu is uprooting his traps. The trapper tells Gilgamesh about the man, and it is arranged for Enkidu to be seduced by Shamhat, a temple lady of pleasure, his first step towards being tamed.
After six days and seven nights of maddening sex she takes Enkidu to a shepherd’s camp to learn how to be civilized.

More here if you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

There you have it – the true and oldest man-woman story in history: man tries to screw his wife or girlfriend to submission and woman tries to screw man into civility, kindness and gentleness in the form of tender foreplay before the serious ramming begins.

So this is how Sumerian priests portrayed their world. There was heaven and earth, gods and angels, giants, creatures created by the gods in the form of men and women or primitives covered with hair and initially preferred the company of the creatures of the wild before befriending Gilgamesh, another oddity 66.666% god and 33.33% man with outstanding deflowering powers at the rate of one bride a night or more.

This is support for the practice of “lord’s right” in dozens of historical and other works extant in Arabic, including the history of Ibn Khaldoun. The vast region of Najd in central Arabia was home to two of the greatest tribes in history. One is from the nation of the Sum, or Sumerians, called Ṭassam, from the same *SM (SUM). The other is a faction of ‘Ad, or the Yemenis known as Jadees. These two tribes appear to have started the Agrarian Era in Najd. A group of linguists from the two tribes are said by dozens of historians to have invented the Abjad alphabet. It is also known as the Phoenician alphabet but it was the standard alphabet for ancient Arabic until replaced by non-Arab linguists who, probably inadvertently created from the almost natural ancient Arabic a linguistic deformity.

Some 4,500 years ago the two sister tribes confronted each other. The king of Ṭassam exercised an old right to deflower the bride on her wedding night. The sister of the king of Jadees was engaged to be married. On her wedding night she appears to have been taken away to the king of Ṭassam who raped her. She came out after the ordeal screaming. She rushed to the court of her brother and began to tear her clothes in agony and distress.

Her brother portended to not have been angered by his sister’s rape. He invited the king of Ṭassam and all his court to a banquet. Either while eating or afterwards, warriors of the Jadees tribe slaughtered the Ṭassamite king and all his men except one who managed to escape and called on the Yemeni king to intervene. The Yemeni king marched on Najd and slaughtered all the men of Jadees and enslaved all women and children.

The Ṭassamites where held responsible for the slaughter and they left Najd first for Iraq to seek the help of their Sumerian brothers, and later to Lebanon where they established themselves in Tyre and Sidon. They were later known as the Phoenician, a Greek word.

So, not all history is myth as it may seem.

For more than 160 years sufficient material has been collected and analysed to provide a reasonable description of life in southern Iraq. The world of the Sumerians is different from ours but some of their myths and stories were modified later and considered “sacred”. In impressionable totality, the version of Sumerian world may appear colourful compared to the grim world presented by angry priests of later millennia. Clay was the stuff of humanity in later texts but the substance did not bind man and god. There was no unity. Total and unconditional submissiveness was the order. Stripped from the Sumerian tales of creation the goddesses who were equal to the gods or sometimes more powerful. The age of the angry priests was the age of the man.

The Hebrew b’nai Ha Elohim “sons of God” is the Arabic bani Adam “children of Adam”. The word “bani/banu” is a suffixed extension of the prehistoric root *BN. From it is both I*BN “son” and *BNa “build”.
What’s the connection?

They both go up – sons with age and buildings with rows of stones.

The word is in Akkadian:
1. banû (4): [Industry]  1) to create, to build; 2) (deity): to create (a person, grain , creation …); 3) (person): to engender (a child), to sire, to make (a figurine), to build (house, boat); 4) (mathematics): 1) to construct; 2) a shape, a form of feature (geometrical …); 5) D: to erect (a city);
2. banû B *, damāqu: to be(come) beautiful;
3. banû: to build;
4. banû: G. to be(come) good, beautiful D. to make good, beautiful; to look after s.o. respectfully;
5. bānû: [Professions]  maker, builder, creator;
6. banûtu: [Art] beauty.

One can read more than meanings in these words. For both gods and priests to be understood by people they had to use the language of the people. Both gods and priests are users of languages not inventors. Now suppose a priest is trying to write a story about the creation of the universe. A word he may use could be banû. The act is one – that of building something. It applies to industry, construction, creation of gods and people. The story may contain acts or miracles like creating human beings, statues or figurines of gods and humans, but the word is also used to describe the building of huge monuments and temples and even cities.

The builder outside the temple of the priest is building a toilet. The word he uses is the same word used to build human beings or create the universe. The story about the creation of the universe contains the verb invented by human beings some 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. There is no other choice. Bilateral roots were invented first. People had relatively few things and concepts to describe. The root was sufficient to express all the communicative needs.

The advent of the Agrarian Era forced people to invent more words so farmers can describe exactly what is it that they are doing. For example, *SQ was used as a name of the foot, the act of walking, the act of herding, driving men and cattle or whatever. Irrigation required “driving” the water to the field for a specific reason. A letter was added to the root, *SQa, that means just that – irrigation, or providing drink to both plants and people.

Etymology can determine in what era a specific word was invented. If the story about the creation of the universe was original it would contain nothing but bilateral roots. Luckily for etymologists every single priest had no idea were the words he used came from or what the root of an extension originally meant. Unfortunate consequences follow. For example, the word angel is a Sumerian compound (An/Anu-Gal). The word used in the Middle East for the New Testament is “Injeel”, from the same Sumerian compound.

It is not clear how the Sumerian compound found its way to Middle Eastern Christianity, but that’s where it began. The role played by the Roman emperor Philip the Arab was not fully explained but it is thought he was one of few third-century Roman emperors sympathetic to Christians. A famous Arab tribe, Ghassanides, was mostly Christians and fought alongside Roman Byzantine armies against Arab Muslims.

Maybe it should be remembered that it was the Latin linguistic knowledge of Lorenzo Valla that proved the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. For the purpose of this post, though, note the last Akkadian word in the list: banûtu: [Art] beauty. It looks feminine/plural of son or ‘bint’ “daughter, girl”.  It is simply remarkable that what looks to be the word for girl/daughter is synonym for beauty.

“Nephilim” presented to mean the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” before the Deluge was also said to have been used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan.

The giants of Canaan are neither mythical nor unknown. Exists in Arabic a word that describes them ʻM/LQ (voc. amaleq). The word is a nucleitic compound that has nothing to do with giants. It simply describes people found everywhere because they were too numerous. These are members of the famous Arabian tribe _Tai. There are dozens of references to their superior size in several Arabic historical works compared to the average size of people that shrank during the Agrarian Era because cereals are considered less nutritious that meat and other foods taken before.

The ‘p’ in Nephilim appears to be a substitution. The root is *NB paired with *BN. Its original meaning is “elevation” or “upright protrusion”. From it is ‘nabi’ “prophet”, because he is elevated above other people but from it also is ‘nabbaira’ “a bump on the head” because the bump causes bruising and swellings.

The Akkadian equivalent is nabû: G. to name (+2 acc.); to invoke (a god); to nominate; to decree, ordain D. to lament, wail Š. to cause to proclaim N. to be named; to be appointed, called upon.

And here is another:
nābgu+: [Human → Family] a grandchild.

A question was asked above: Why the addition is not “fine”?

Identifying some members of the tribe of Tai as giants poses another question. The father of this tribe is the son of Ad, also Adad, Hadad, etc. A poet from this tribe said that his people are older than the rival tribe of ‘Ad, or the Yemenis. So the tribe knew they were the first in Arabia. Ad is Adam which is simply a suffixed extension of the root (*AD+m). Adapa also appears to be the same person.

Part 2 

Anu, the Sumerian god of gods, accepted his son’s (Enki) proposal to create man to bear the labour of the gods and this was done with the help of his half-sister Ninki. The created can claim to have been manufactured by the gods, so the gods are their fathers.

In Christianity, “God the Father is a title given to God in various religions. In trinitarian Christianity, God the Father is regarded as the first person of the Trinity, followed by the second person God the Son (Jesus Christ) and the third person God the Holy Spirit. Since the second century, Christian creeds included affirmation of belief in “God the Father (Almighty)”, primarily as his capacity as “Father and creator of the universe”.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father

In Judaism, God is described as “Father” as he is known to be the absolute one, indivisible and incomparable, transcendent, immanent, and non-corporeal God of creation and history. The God in Judaism is the giver of the shabbath and the torahs—written, oral, and mystical—to his chosen people.

The Sumerian narrative is simpler and Anu (An) appears to have been viewed as a universal god for the humanity created as a joint venture by the family.

So, regardless of the original stories, the ancients, and not the so ancients, appear to think human beings were created by gods or by the God.

But what says primary etymology that relies on the skeletal bilateral roots not on confused secondary etymology of root extensions or trilaterals?

The suspicion of etymology is that the Sumerian concept of gods fornicating with earth girls is much older with the caveat that the fornication of gods are different from the fornication of human beings as it may not involve the usual wetness and sweat.

Those who have been following our posts on the origin of religion would know that Elohim, Eli and Allah have a common Stone Age root *IL (IPA *ʼL).

From this root is ‘wld’ (walad): “Children, descendant, progeny, offspring, posterity, beget, birth, breed, bring about, bring into being or existence, originate, produce, breed, give birth to a baby, kid, scion, son, born, bear, breed, father, give birth to,” etc.

How can this be explained?

Girls in today’s Arabic are called walaya “Il’s appointees”.

How can this be explained?

These are not words from religious texts, Sumerian or otherwise; this is primary etymology. It was not created by priests but by people thousands of years before the institutionalisation of religions.

Let’s look at another word – *QL which has several other forms such as qal, qawl, aqwal, ql li “said, a saying, sayings, he spoke to me, he told me”.

The ‘q’ in some Arabic dialects is pronounced with a hamza so the examples would be: “aal, awal, al li”. *QL has the “natural meaning” of “little, reduced”. Primary etymology appears to think the root of these forms is *IL.

How can this be explained?

One may say that many people, including priests and oracles, claim God talks to them. Now oracles and priests have an interest in giving people the impression they talk to God but would ordinary people use a word that seems to have been derived from *Il?

In an answer to the above it is possible that women unable to have children prayed to *IL in pre-historic times to help them have a baby. Some may had the baby they desperately wanted and it is possible they attributed the birth of the child to *IL. It would have involved the semen of her man but elsewhere there are stories of “immaculate” conception. In either case, Eli, and before him *IL, would have been involved, somehow.

The etymology team was very surprised to identify the root *RG for the following words:

regal, royal, regalis, *reg, regalia, real, reality, realistic, royal, royalty, royalties, regimen, regere, reign, reigne, règne, Raj, rajah, Rajput, régime, regent, regimen. The main entries should also include all their known extensions of dozens more words.

https://plus.google.com/111382181687965814227/posts/Dy39XwKYjrH

The implications of this rooting are huge in that some of the founders of ancient royal dynasties were oracles and prophesiers.

If children of gods or children of gods and earthly girls are amongst us would they know their origin?

Another question: Do the rajahs of India and the royalties of Europe, the Middle East and others know their ancestors may have been oracles in Mesopotamian or other temples and primitive “Stonehenge” constructions in ancient Arabia?

We are the offspring of past heroes and villains, builders of empires and destroyers of civilisation, prophets and human devils.

The largest, or three of the largest tribes in the Arab world today, are Tai, Tamim, Shammar. Primary etymology believes the three tribes are all descendents of the founder Ad also known as Adad, Hadad, Adonai, Adam, Adap (Adapa) and the Quranic Idda. The millions of Shammars today are the Amorites of the past.

If there are children of gods or children of any god/man proportion around, do they look different?

Statues and figurines of Mesopotamian gods have unusually large eyes.

An example is here:
https://plus.google.com/+ThebookoforiginsNetAdel_S_Bishtawi/posts/DKwBBqe71tj

The etymology team is objective because etymology is objective. People lie but words don’t lie. If our ancestors knew something important they would have created a word to express that something. Etymology tries to identify the word and its root. That’s why it is called Primary, because it goes all the way back to the roots where the ultimate objectivity lies.

However, this particular writer is very biased when it comes to women.

Here is a piece he wrote:

*Once in probably a couple of thousand times a face wonders gracefully in front of your eyes and language fails once again to produce the accurate description. In a way, it is like looking at a unique painting. The last thing you want to do is to spoil its canvas with words.
No words today.
They are not necessary. Just look and muse at God’s two most perfect creations joined in one – a beautiful woman, and even more beautiful eyes.
I have a little advice for young people. If you don’t want to fall in love steer away from eyes. If you don’t and the eyes introduce themselves to each other and feel safe in the company of each other you’re done – both of you.

https://plus.google.com/+AdelBishtawihistorian_and_novelist/posts/R9mYyayUaLq

So, look for the eyes but keep this in mind:

1- ●If you think our Stone Age ancestral mums didn’t develop the killing tools to overwhelm our poor ancestral dads you probably don’t know that the world population today exceeds seven billion;

2- ●Scanning the eyes of 379 adults with normal eyes without vision problems revealed that on average, men had pupils 3.5 millimeters wide while women had pupils 3.8 millimeters wide;
http://io9.com/5905458/how-womens-eyes-are-different-from-mens

3- ●The Arabic “Oryx eyes” is not a reference to the deer but to women with large eyes, actual or mascaraed with what may be the oldest cosmetic in history – kohl or antimony;

4- ●In the Quran “Thus. And We will marry them to fair women with large, [beautiful] eyes” (Dukhan – Smoke- 52). Etymology looked into the word translated “large [beautiful] eyes” and can offer two possible but different roots:

5- 1) *ḤW (IPA *Ḥʼ). The prime meaning of this root on invention appears to be water but more specifically containers of water like water holes. The word ‘eye’ itself is derived from the water hole used by both animals and human beings to drink because they thought both look similar. Another meaning is “water fountain”.

6- 7- 2) The Quranic word for “a woman with large beautiful eyes” is “Ḫur”. The middle word of the Sumerian Ninhursag (Ninḫursag) or Ninkharsag, who was a mother goddess of the mountains, and one of the seven great deities of Sumer, is “hur/ḫur”. She is principally a fertility goddess. Temple hymn sources identify her as the ‘true and great lady of heaven’ (possibly in relation to her standing on the mountain) and kings of Sumer were ‘nourished by Ninhursag’s milk’. Her hair is sometimes depicted in an omega shape, and she at times wears a horned head-dress and tiered skirt, often with bow cases at her shoulders, and not infrequently carries a mace or baton surmounted by an omega motif or a derivation, sometimes accompanied by a lion cub on a leash. She is the tutelary deity to several Sumerian leaders.
8-
Akkadian uses a single symbol for German ‘ch’, ‘h’ and ‘ḥ’. There are a number of ways to identify the letter including comparative root/extension data. Arabic can be useful in some cases but extra care is needed.

However, the word in the Quran appears from ancient Arabian *ḤW. If one were to imagine a roundish shape of a water hole with its whitish or blackish circular perimeter, one may imagine what shape girls in prehistoric times we doing to their eyes to emulate something that’s the ultimate source of life – water. When kohl is added, the eyes look larger and draws the attention of males quicker that kohl-less eyes.

The secret of women, and probably men, is to engage the opposite sex in an eye to eye appraisal which may be followed by a smile, a wink or ‘thank you but no”.

We wish you luck with your search but maybe you want to consider this:
Life can be difficult for most of us for various reasons. Centuries of internalisation may have led some of us to believe the suffering on earth is the lot of human beings who, if patient, will be rewarded with joy in heaven.
With respect, this is bunkum.

It is not the lot of humanity to suffer. Our concept of earth and heaven are religious. Earth is in heaven, like all other planets and starts. We are mortals but we shouldn’t forget we, along with our earthly abode, are made of the same cosmic gas and dust of all other planets and stars in all galaxies.
Go ahead and say, “We humans have an origin in heaven so we are heavenly.”
As far as etymology is concerned, this is correct.
So maybe a search for children of gods and semi gods amongst us is not necessary. Looking at each other may be a sufficient proof.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here